What's happening? (To TY and Verbatim DVD, that is...)

I havn’t been keeping up with the play in the last 12 months or so (university has me beat!) - and I come back to see people claiming MIT CMC Verbatims are the ones to buy, and that Verbs > TY these days?

What’s going on?!?!?!?! My world is crashing down around me :sad: :eek: [ol]
[li]Have TY gone downhill since TYG02 and Yuden T02?
[/li][li]What happened to Verbatim’s “DataLifePlus” moniker?
[/li][li]Do MCC Still make Verbatim discs, and if so, how do they compare now to the Prodisc/CMC/?? outsourced discs?
[/li][li]MIJ a distant memory?
[/li][/ol]

For some reason I just trust Japan more than I trust Taiwan to make something worth buying. I guess a lot of it comes from consumer electronics in the 1980’s and 1990’s where MIJ > anything else, not only because it broke less, provided better quality at what it did, but also especially if you wanted a chance at repairing it if it broke.

Then there was the capacitor electrolyte fiasco of a few years ago, and the CD-R and DVD-/+R to further confirm MIJ superiority…

Has this all changed or am I listening to a select few evangelists of CMC/Verbatim?

  • TY are still excellent in my books.
  • They removed the moniker.
  • Well, all Verb discs from Taiwan and India use MCC dye and stampers - CMC make the best batches of these according to general concensus here. Prodisc and Moser Baer India are lower down in terms of quality, but I still think both are very good compared to other discs availible. The newer DL discs are made in Singapore by MCC themselves.
  • MIJ is not a distant memory at all - its only that Verb uses TY for some of their European products. Maxell 16x MIJ is absolutely brilliant aswell from what I have seen of their -R and +R that I have and other reports here.

8x TY are still very good media, especially the 8x DVD+R.
The 16x TYs, however, are giving quite variable (but nevertheless mostly acceptable) results compared to other media. The best 16x media are the CMC Verbies, because the probability of bad batches is lower.

I never thought I’d hear the day. CMC being consistent AND good, moreso than TY?

Phwoar.

So the only media MCC in Taiwan/Singapore still make in their own factories is Dual Layer? I guess that would explain why they removed the DLP moniker!

So I guess CMC media from other manufacturers hasn’t got much better?

[I]made in CMC facilities MCC[/I], not CMC’s own media (though -sidenote- CMC’s own technology improved hugely). I’m worried that since we talk more and more about Verbatim outsourcing, more and more people get confused about what are these discs. They are MCC (Mitsubishi) discs, with MCC technology. The fact that they are produced in CMC, Prodisc or Moser Baer facilities doesn’t change this basic fact, they’re MCC media.

So I guess CMC media from other manufacturers hasn’t got much better?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: ??? Uh?

You said since. TYG02 and Yuden T02 can sometimes have nasty bonding problems but so can other media. (When it comes to bonding Ritek probably does the best job but then again Ritek has other problems.)
Incase of TYG03 and Yuden T03 I can say that it’s going downhill. Quality is less good. Much higher variance in quality. Also support is less good.

[li]What happened to Verbatim’s “DataLifePlus” moniker?[/li]
They no longer use the term actively.

[li]Do MCC Still make Verbatim discs, and if so, how do they compare now to the Prodisc/CMC/?? outsourced discs?[/li]
MCC themselves make still verbatim disc’s. DUal layers DVD disc’s, HD-DVD-R disc’s, Blu Ray disc’s.

And 10x/12x CD-RW is MIS too! :wink:

If you want to use TY, go with TYG02 T02, I got some poor results from TYG03’s. I expected better after doing a PIE scan with PlextorTools. There were a few spikes where they went out of bounds limit. Maybe I need to change burners but, I’d definitely stick with TYG02’s and T02’s for now. Majority of the brands in the US have all media manufactured in Taiwan now.

Not all I think I have some made in Ireland ! (CMC made (At that time CMC owned the plant !)

I don’t know why people are complaining about TY 16X media , I use TYG03 and find it excellent .
I know that alot of people here have high standards about PIF and PIE , but it doesn’t mean anything with High Quality media like TY or MCC in real life .
The lowest ever PIF I got was 300 totals with Prodisc MCC 16X burnt at 12X on Benq 1640 BSLB but other discs from the same spindle had variable quality .
While ,on the other hand, Panasonic TYG03 are always consistant for me :

Burnt @ 12X with Pioneer 110 1.41 :

Burnt @ 12X with Benq 1640 BSLB SB :ON/ON WOPC : ON OS : OFF

These are just examples , all my burns with TYG03 are like these .

Well said. :iagree: :clap:

The obsession about ultra-low PIE and PIF values is just that: an obsession. It’s alwyas been my opinion in terms of PIE/PIF figures: when it’s very good, it’s good enough, there are more important things to consider than fantastic scans: mechanical characteristics, reflectivity, scratch resistance, long-term stability…

Thanks for saying that. :iagree: :bow: :bow:

My opinion is that the PIE and PIF will increase in time. Most sources agree with this. If you have lower errors to start with, the life of the disc could be longer before it becomes unreadable.

The reason I am “obsessed” with these error counts is not so much an obsession as a desire to match up the media to the best burner. Why not, when you can?

I will accept more errors if the media is significantly cheaper. In the case of the MCC/TY situation, it is backwards. TYG03 and YUDEN000 T03 cost much more and wind up with more errors. MCC 004 costs less and has fewer errors. The only one that might make sense is TYG02. The last batch I got had 1000% more errors and was only $1 cheaper per 100 than my MCC 004. Hard to justify the value there, especially when you add in that TYG02 is 8X and MCC 004 burns very well at 12X.

Sounds fine, and yes all discs do degrade, but… rate, rate, rate. It’s far more sound to re-check some discs of each batch after some time to have an idea of the degradation rate, than to trust original lower PIE/PIF values. That’s not my opinion, that’s my [I]experience[/I]. I have many discs in my collection showing not-so-great PIE/PIF original values that turn out to have a undetectable degradation rate afer 16 months (examples MCC02RG20, TTG02, CMCMAGE01), and I have seen discs with great scans showing clear signs of degradation after only 8 months (examples some TYG02, some MCC03RG20, and of course most Ritek G04 and G05). So my opinion is that trusting original scans for longevity is wishful thinking.

The reason I am “obsessed” with these error counts is not so much an obsession as a desire to match up the media to the best burner. Why not, when you can?
This is of course perfectly legitimate, I see nothing wrong with it. BTW I wasn’t thinking of you when inputting my former comments… :slight_smile:

No problem, I wear my badge of “picky” with pride. None of us really know anything about long term storage of our current media. I am looking to get 20 years and, to the best of my experience, all other things being held constant, there is no [I]disadvantage[/I] to lower error rates, and certainly there is no advantage to higher error rates.

My argument is much that same as a very old philosophical argument for belief in God. If you believe and you are wrong, no loss. If you don’t believe and are wrong, big trouble.

In the above case, I won’t go along, but for the purposes of DVDs, if I am wrong, no loss. If I am right, big gain, so it is any easy choice.

I’m not gonna touch your religious argument above, but I don’t agree with your argument when it comes to media scans.

There is one way that your strategy of choosing the scans with the lowest PIE/PIF may hurt you and turn out to be a disadvantage.

The way this can happen is if you use the “must have extremely low PIE/PIF” rule to disregard media that might have better durability and stability than the media that produces excellent initial scans.

If you just use your rule to pick the best burning drive, firmware and burn-speed however, but not for picking the media, then you probably won’t be making bad decisions.

As most of the time, you put it in a clearer way than I did… :flower:

Sometimes we get so caught up on the details, we can’t simply explain the general concepts in a simple way.

I personally do not see a direct correlation or link between the base PIF/PIE scan and the rate at which the dye ages. In other words, it is possible something with a low base PIF/PIE scan may age faster than other forms of media and may end up with a shorter life span. I think a lot of us is confusing or creating unsubstantiated correlations here. In general, products made with high quality usually lasts longer. I think this is why so many of us are so hung up over TY media. The other problem is that we don’t have enough good experimental data which can clearly show what would be the best brand to buy for archival purposes. So again, many of use place our bets on TY because of their past reputation and their better than usual base PIF/PIE scans.

I certainly didn’t make any assertion that there was a correlation between initial scan error levels and deterioration rates and I haven’t seen anyone who has. I have always first choosen quality media with a good reputation for durability and second, burned with the best drive/media/speed combination to get the lowest possible error levels and totals.

Of course, when you add additional variables it is possible to find other factors that will be more important than error levels. I was not insisting that error levels were the most important factor. I just said that, [I]all other factors being constant[/I], lower error rates were better as dye deteriorates.

I just so I keep the record straight, I am not advocating any religious arguments, just commenting on a logically valid argument.

I agree with chas0039’s philosophy. I wouldn’t take it to the extremes he does but can’t fault him for doing so… :wink: