TY media messup up after printing on it

I have bought these printable Plextor DVD-R discs. Silver top. Media code:
TYG03. I bought them of the CD-freaks-store. I doubt they are fakes.

I burned them with my Lite-on 16h5s. And then scanned them in a couple of drives. Including my NEC 3540. I included two scans with my NEC 3540 (although cd-speeds reports its a sony, I don’t know why, It’s 100% definitly a 1 year old NEC 3540)
The results were pleasing. Good burns.

Than I print the disc with my rather new Canon Pixma 4200. Applied good care, no dust or dirt on the tray. Real canon ink… you know, everything by the rules.

After I let the printed disc dry for good while, I check my disc again and the scan has become a lot worse.
My Lite-on makes no difference before and after.

But both my NEC 3540-burner and Aopen 1648 AAP PRO DVD-ROM encouter huge differences and it takes them like forever to load the disc.
Transfer rates and DVD-playback are smooth though.

It’s even worse when discs are burned with the NEC. So I thought, since I never had any TY before (always Verbatim) it was maybe my NEC that wasn’t too fond of the TY. It’s a better +R burner than it is a -R burner anyway. CD freaks screwed up and sent me -R instead of +R but I didn’t want to the trouble of exchanging them. It were only 25 discs.

Does anyone have a take on this. Or are both the NEC and AOPEN (which are a year older than the Lite On-drive) just not capable of scanning printed media well?

This freaks me out. I use printable media for the discs I care for the most.

Anyone has a take on this? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance & kind regards,

Nec drives are not much reliable for scans.

Have you done also transfer rate test (in the benchmark tab)? If reading graph of the disc is good, probably you don’t need to worry, but to be sure you should redo the scan with a benq or a liteon drive, or a plextor if you have one.

Thanks for your reply.
I know, but I’ve done 100’s of scans with that drive and pretty much know what to expect from it when it’s a good disc. And that’s not it. I always have better burns that what shows in the second image.

So I’m just wondering: Is the printing screwing up the disc or just screwing up the scanning?

Ok, but PIF x30 in 30 minutes with just printing between it isn’t about the drive scanning abilities I think. The drives values may not be very realistic at points but it’s pretty constant.

Try doing some transfer rate tests. Check if the disc is being subjected to extreme heat during the printing process and check for scratches/marks on the underside (data side).

NEC drives generally cannot be trusted to give an acurate view of the quality of a disc.

Have you used a spray fixer after printing? If some spray ended in the data surface it can cause a rise in errors

No I didn’t. Good thinking, though.

Hi, don’t trust the NEC, they’re very inconsistent scanners (I think recommended scan speeds are 5X or 12X, whichever is more consistent for your particular drive). And the Sony reference shown is for the burner, not the scanner (Sony-Q31A and LiteOn-16H5S are the same drive). Go with the LiteOn scans. :slight_smile:

I agree, scanning with the Lite-On is much preferred.

Thanks for your reply.
Transfer rates are good, solid. Although it takes unusually long to get started.

I’ve used this NEC for 100’s of scans, so I kinda know what to expect from it. It’s been a solid scanner in the past, my burns always look somewhat like the first image and are comparable to my Lite-on scans (if you consider some margins). I always scan using 3 drives. My lite-on likes it perfectly both and after. My aopen 1648 AAP PRO totally dislikes it but I only keep that one for scanning and ripping audio discs, it was never anywhere near reliable for DVD.

Thank you for the information. Didn’t know that about the sony. My first sony dvd-burner was a piece of crap :slight_smile:

What really bugs me is that after the printing those discs get accepted really slow by my nec and aopen. Both of them rarely or even never showed any problems like that before with my other (not printed) burns.
My lite-on is fine. But 1 out of 3 isn’t exactly a boost of confidence for having a realiable disc, is it?

I’ve seen the same change after printing and it’s either dust or very small scratches from the printers tray. Anyway it is for me and some of mine look pretty much like yours - relatively. Not sure if it matters but it would be nicer without… but then you can’t print… oh! :wink:

Your recommendation on the speed is duly noted for my future scans.
But I have scanned many discs at 8x. I can’t change the values now for the sake of comparison.

I use an iP4000 (and spray after printing - good point geno, cause you have to be [I]very [/I]careful) and haven’t had similar problems. As CJ2 says, there’s always extra handling involved and the tiniest piece of dust or scratch can influence a scan, so a slight increase in errors (even on the LiteOn) is to be expected. I always use Verbatim though.

I thought of the dust and cleaned the printers disc tray with a microfibre-cloth. I’m not sure that helped a lot.
I can’t see any scratches with naked eye but if I did the scan would problably look even a lot worse.

It would explain a lot. But then I point an angry finger at Canon.

I include Lite-On scan AFTER printing (the one before printing looks almost exactly the same). So why does my LITE-On not have troubles with it. Although I must say the Litey has proven to be my superior drive in reading back old DVD’s I had burned without much knowledge of scanning and good media, etc.


How do you guys keep the tray spotless? Any hints, please?

Nothing special really, other than the occasional blow (with dry lips :bigsmile: ). Your scan looks perfect for TYG03. Can’t explain your NEC dilemma (never been a NEC adept).

DrageMester and Francksoy both own NEC drives, maybe they’ll add some input (I’d be interested to read their opinions at least).

:slight_smile:

The additional PIF spikes in the second NEC scan could be the result of approx. 4 small scratches, dust particles, fingerprints or other surface problem being present after the disc has been printed. Try studying the data surface closely under a strong artificial light (ambient light is almost useless for this).

The extra recognition time, if it’s real and not just the result of an increasing impatience :bigsmile: , is not something that can be explained by surface problems in those 4 locations.

@[B]Cressida[/B]: Blowing with your mouth, even with dry lips, will sometimes result in small spit droplets landing on whatever it is you’re blowing on. I’m not going to pretend that I never do it myself, but I have regretted it a couple of times because I had to wipe off spit. :doh:
Compressed air on a can is much better.

You’re right (as always) DrageMester :slight_smile: , I shouldn’t recommend that.