I have to say I’m not at all impressed with Taiyo Yuden’s 16x discs. I recently burned my first TYG03s and I don’t get scans as good those with Mitsubishi’s 16x DVD-R. Similarly I’ve had T03s from 2 batches but neither comes close to the results I get from MCC 004 and the new MAXELL 003 - and no better than RICOHJPN R03.
Maybe time will show that the TY discs last better but certainly early impressions are disappointing.
We are still waiting for the frimware to catch up in updating the writing stratagies for TY 16x discs. I though mine turned out quite well even with old firmware: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1437858&postcount=193 and it should, hopefully, improve with solidburn over the next few burns.
I have some Verbatim branded TYG03, and they are not that impressive.
You can see some scans here.
As you may or may not already know, I started a thread about T03 batch variation a while ago. The best of my two batches is excellent and the other one is reliable but with so-so scans.
So I think there are two challenges:
[ol]
[li]Taiyo Yuden must get a better grip on their quality assurance[/li][li]Drive firmware must be better tuned[/li][/ol]
I’ve had good results with Plextor-branded T03, but that’s on an LG4163B (and only with the latest firmware).
Hi 
Now that things are settling down I find TY 16x media as good as MCC. Whether +/- makes little difference.
See here as well as attached.
What code do your discs have, all the same batch or various?
Most of my T03 discs are TH001330 and are mediocre (for TY), burnt on BenQ 1650/1620 and Lite-ON 1635S with all the advanced write quality improving options activated, no major difference, still mediocre…
They were purchased late last year so hopefully, newer batches are more like what would be expected of premium TY media.
People always want to blame the media, and most of the time they are wrong.
All media varies from batch to batch. How much that variation affects your burn quality is up to your drive, not the media. If a drive is properly calibrated for the media, it will adapt to the variations, and the results will vary only slightly. If it is only marginally calibrated for that media, results can vary a lot more.
That said, it’s also true that many people around here are far too critical, and tend to interpret relatively small variations in scan results as being more significant than they are.
Any such discussion can only be meaningful if accompanied by posted scans. The OP has told us nothing about his results that is meaningful, or in any way demonstates any “issue” with the TY.
I see, I have some of those discs too, results are much better than the TH001330 batch which reflects what I have seen in scans from [B]DrageMester’s[/B] thread on the subject of T03 batch variation. I first burned mine on a BenQ 1620 and believed most people’s view that it was [B]’[/B][I]just because the firmware wasn’t properly tuned[/I][B]’[/B] but after trying the discs on both the 1650 & 1635S with latest firmwares and finding little improvement, I’d be more inclined to put the source of the relatively poor burns down to the media (Yes, in the overall scale of excellent to POS media, the results aren’t terrible but are certainly not worthy of the TY reputation).
With technologies like Solid Burn/Hyper Tuning, better tuned write strategies [I]shouldn’t[/I] really be required anyway as they are meant to overcome this very issue, or alternatively, I’ve completely missed the point of having such things 
In the case of T03 batch variations, I think we are right.
All media varies from batch to batch. How much that variation affects your burn quality is up to your drive, not the media. If a drive is properly calibrated for the media, it will adapt to the variations, and the results will vary only slightly. If it is only marginally calibrated for that media, results can vary a lot more.
Regardless of which drive I have used, and regardless of SolidBurn, WOPC, HyperTuning and Online HyperTuning being used (or not), no drive has been capable of burning the TH001330 batch with the same quality as the TH000021 batch.
Occam’s razor suggest that the explanation is due to limitations in the media, and not limitations in several drives from independent manufacturers.
That said, it’s also true that many people around here are far too critical, and tend to interpret relatively small variations in scan results as being more significant than they are.
I agree with you that people are much too obsessed with PIE/PIF levels and totals. 
They are also not obsessed enough with actual reading tests! 
They should, but they can’t magically make average media into excellent media - whether we’re talking about completely different MIDs or just variations within the same MID.
I wasn’t trying to make the point that such things should make the TH001330 results magically better [I][B]but[/B] more disagreeing with the whole point that lack of better tuned write strategies were to blame for the burn results from the TH001330 batch of T03 media[/I]
My results from TH000021 are much more like what [B]zebadee[/B] posted and that’s what really convinced me that the[I] needs better tuned write strategies[/I] reason was not, [B]in this case[/B], the correct conclusion to come to over the T03 burn results, as like yourself, I’ve had similar results from TH001330 & TH000021.
Well the TYG03 that I used have the serial GH000152. I am not too critical of minor differences in scans it happens, I only use them to track degredation over time. My touch paper test is can I get at the data on the disc/does it play? If yse class it as a successful burn.
Your use if Ochams Razor Drage can be applied both ways. After all there are variations in one line of drives let alone between different manufacturers.
I don’t quite grasp what you’re trying to say here!?
My use of Occam’s Razor is as follows:
Which of these two explanations is the simplest one?
[ol]
[li]Two batches of T03 are really equally good, but one always returns worse quality scans because the firmware calibration is only optimal for one of the batches in all of the used drives used including BenQ, NEC, Plextor, Matshita and LiteOn drives. All these drives from different manufacturers are all calibrated optimally for the same batch.[/li][li]Two batches of T03 are not equally good, because one batch returns worse quality scans in all of the drives used.[/li][/ol]The second explanation is far simpler than the first explanation, so Occam’s Razor suggest that the second explanation is the right one. Please note that Occam’s Razor is not a proof - but it’s an important scientific principle.
Two batches of T03 are not equally good, because one batch returns worse quality scans in all of the drives used.
And there is the seriously flawed thinking. The term “good” is mis-used. Both batches are equally “good”, they just have slightly differing dye formulations or application. The phrase “all of the drives used” is misleading as well. Name the drives. There may well be other drives that produce excellent results on the same discs, even the same drives with different firmware.
Please note that Occam’s Razor is not a proof - but it’s an important scientific principle.
It’s just a coincidence that the “simplest” explanation is the one that supports your agenda. 
Yes, that’s an important scientific principle, but in this case it’s mis-applied.
I’m with you CDan, I only use my scans for checking on degredation over time, too much emphasis is being placed on them.
Though you have put into words better then I did my thinking on the drives issue. I went to look at drages scans in the TY -R thread and one of his a lite-on reports a QS of 70 yet compared to mine, the PIE/PIF scores are almost identical and my BenQ gives a QS of 93. The differences are too small to account for a 23 point difference.
He did name the drives just not the models.
It is not only some users on this forum who have expressed these opinions of 16x TY media
http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=21487
I would think experienced users like [B]dolphinius_rex,[buck][/B] and [B]Halc[/B] (who I believe uses the username [B]Halcyon[/B] on here) wouldn’t reach such conclusions hastily.
Is it because these negative comments are being directed towards Taiyo Yuden media that people dismiss them? I’m sure other manufacturers wouldn’t get the same kind of response if these sorts of issues were raised about their products.
The burn results from TH001330 would be classed as very good if I thought they were from another manufacturer, while the TH000021 results are typical of what is expected of TY media, both done with same settings on same drives. [I]Batch variation/Un-optimized write strategies[/I] doesn’t explain the difference as 100 discs later, I still get the same consistent types of scans no matter what firmware/drive/settings I have tried.
Does anyone know how well TYG03 and YUDEN000 T03 do in ageing tests? My results with T03 media are not as good as with MCC 004 - in both burning and bonding, but not much worse. They are still good, but I expected more from TY personally.