Uh? (NEC 3550, RITEKG05 and quality scans)

Looking here and there on cdfreaks forum I found different opinions and facts about RITEKG05 media, spanning from total disasters to decent burns. :confused:

So I tried myself with a NEC 3550A burner to see if these media are good enough for my backups. Unfortunately my scanning device is the nec above, so I played with different speeds to see if things changed.

These graphs refers to the same RITEKG05 media (sold as Ridata DVD-R 8X in a spindle of 50 discs) burned at 6x (look, six!) and scanned at 5x, 12x and Maximum (16x).

BTW the 5x scan is a complete nonsense (and this isn’t the first 5x scan that goes out as a nonsense, even with different media!) , so I think this burner is totally unreliable scanner at 5x!

Also if someone has a nec 3550 (or 4550, that’s the same) ritekg05 media and a good scanner, can please post here some quality scans?

And for comparison, here is a quality scan of a RITEKG05 disc burned at 8x.

I think that these discs are just labeled to be 8x, since the 4x and 6x zones are in an acceptable PIE range, instead 8x zone is a complete mess. :Z


Yo-

Pretty well documented that the Ritek G05’s have turned to crap in the past ten months or so-

Mike

who wants to waste time burning and scanning crap like G05’s.
I am doing a scan of yuden T02 burned at 8x in the 3550 and scanned at 5x
with a rescan with benq 1620, each burn so far has been quite good with this media
at 8x, but damned if I am not seeing something really weird, the 3550 may be
learning to scan.

scans from the 3550 match 99qs of the benq 1620 after 1st scan
1st scan with 3550 had a bad area in first gig, rescaned with benq
it wasn’ there.
Conclusion the 3550 is a decent scanner, not as good as the benq.

First of all, FORZA LUPI!!!

I’ve a 4550A & RiData RITEKG05 too (M.S. Severino anche tu?)

Here are scans of the same disk @5X and @16X [EDIT: both disks burnt @6X]:



Ok, I agree RITEKG05 is not a good media to burn to, but I liked to see what a BenQ or LiteOn scanner said about this media burned with a nec 3550 or 4550 and using a 6x speed.

About scanning, I see that 12x seems to be better choice for this device instead of pure 5x, and so a scan made with a good scanner would be helpful for comparisons.

@GianlucaB: :bigsmile: A friend of mine took these discs in Naples, I don’t know the name of the shop… however… FORZA LUPI !!!

My point is to establish a baseline(the near perfect burn on consistent media),
from there one can compare scanners and burners and scanning and burn speeds. With inconsistent media you are limited in any comparison of burners or burn speed.
This is fundamental physics 101 from almost 40 years ago for me.

I can only add that I’ve had horrible results with Verbatim 8x Pearl Whites -RitekG05 - on my NEC 3550.

My comments are not so much based on scans, but on actual results. On my stand alone DVD player the picture is jerky and there are squared boxes every 15 mins. or so. And I’ve never had problems before with other Verbatims, Fuji, Infiniti, etc.

You can read my post here: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=161200#post1224792

I am not looking for any near perfect burn here, this thread talks about RITEKG05 media and maybe the way to get that junk into an almost reliable media for backups and other minor things.

For my personal approach burning them at 6x instead of their rated speed of 8x turned out into a bit better (or just say coherent) quality scan, but since I don’t have a good scanner I can’t say if it is a progress or it isn’t.

I agree with you about comparing scanners with inconsistent media, and it is not a good idea. But my intent was to compare nec scan with a “real” scan strictly referred to this particular media.

I’m sorry if I was misunderstood, but English is not my native language :sad:

My tests are revealing that my nec 3550 is an adequate scanner, forget PIE’s,
look at PIF’s and QS’s.
Testing with sony(mij) then verbatim(mcc) and finally with some cloneYuden’s and ritek
R04.

rbrtpl, should I deduct that RITEKG05 are poor media, but burned at 6x are still acceptable?
Quality score gave me 93 (as you can see in the scan) and pi failures are quite low in number!

you are lucky, those are by far the best G05’s I have heard of, they are very inconsistent, as you may find out.

Ok! Thank you for replies and explanations. Probably I’ll check every disc I’ll burn, and surely I won’t buy more Ritek media!

The main problem with G05 is not how good or bad they burn and how well or bad they scan. The main problem is fast degradation. Some of the ones I tested became totally unreadable in less than three weeks…

Search the blank media section for “G05”…

Also as Martin P mentioned, these discs are among the less compatible with different readers. That’s also the first thing I personally experienced with G05 discs… no matter how good the scans are, lots of reading problems in standalone players. :Z

just want to ask, for the 1st 3 scan graphs, why is the 12x graph much better than the 5x!? That’s very weird!!

the faster the scan the fewer errors reported, usually.

MAXELL 8x -R
RITEK G05

Burned with CopyToDVD 3 @8x
Transfer on 4551 is messed by external Cypress USB2 chipset.




That’s weird because 5x scan give much more PI Errors than 12x and 16x give more PI Errors than 12x, so 12x seems to be the best speed for scans with my unit.

PS: Once I had a LiteOn 1653s and full speed scans were terrible. Then I discovered that I had to do scans at 4x, and things returned normal.

same experience here

the best I can get with G05 is Ridata branded
PIF 1xxx
burn and read with NEC 3540A