Your opinion - better one of bad batch of TY T03

vbimport

#1

Here’s a PIF scan of one of the better discs in my 3rd bad batch of Yuden T03 (Plextor). The first cluster contains 500 PIF errors on .5% of the scan area.

What do you think? Acceptable, or reburn, considering this disc is for archiving medium important personal data.

The really bad ones have similar clusters but several 1000s of PIFs in a larger area of 1-2%. PIF levels there rise to 5-8 as well, at least they stay in spec on this one.

I should add that none of these discs, not even under a bright light, show any defects, unevenness of color of dye, dustspecks, nada, looking perfect visually.

Moomin


#2

Could you scan on a LiteOn or BenQ with CD Speed for comparison? I, for one, have never really understood Plextor results.


#3

Sorry, Plextor only. It reads similarly as with Liteon scans, as far as PIE/PIF scans go, so it shouldn’t really be a problem.

Moomin


#4

The 716A is not known for high quality burns on some media types. Since you’ve got the same results on 3 batches of media, perhaps you should look to the burner rather than the media for your trouble.

That said, it’s not the sort of a scan that screams out “bad media”. More likely it’s suggesting marginal firmware support for this media, and suggesting a lower burn speed.


#5

I’d probably accept it since the max PIF is 2 and since the cluster is “only” 500 PIF.


#6

[B]Moomin:[/B]

What write speed do you use? I don’t see too many PIF clusters on the T03 I have tried in the past. Though if data is of any importance, I wouldn’t use T03 media personally, MCC004/T02 are better choices.


#7

The result should be ok. As long as the TRT is good and all.


#8

Cdan, I didn’t burn on the Plextor, just scanned there. Burn drive was a Pioneer DVR 111 at 8x. The Plextor is also capable of burning this media well enough, it’s definitely the media. After all, Plextor does implement support for the media they sell under their own name :slight_smile:

CD Pirate, TRT looks fine on the Plextor, but not so good on the Pioneer itself (though I’m used to this, it seems it’s not a very good reader)

I wonder if Franck would chime in :), he’s once said he likes to reburn when PIF clustering happens.

Thanks for your opinions, all!

Moomin


#9

Can you post one of the pioneer’s TRT? I have a 111L and it TRTs stuff fine. If it doesn’t, the disc could very well be bad.


#10

The TRT is from my old Pioneer 109. I got the 111 to get a better faster reader so verification after burning wouldn’t take so long. I only started using the 111, will be interesting to see if it too has a bad TRT. It’s still in an external USB enclosure that barely manages 8x so it’s no good for TRT until I remove the 109 and put the 111 internally. I’ll post my results as soo as the drive is free (formatting an old RW before giving it away :wink: )

Which reminds me, this old DVD-RW from Verbatim, 1x, claims archival life of 100 years… That’s just for the disc I presume, not the data on it? :bigsmile:

Moomin


#11

OK, I removed the 109 and built it into my dad’s P4 PC, and the 111 is now sitting in my trusty P3 burnstation.

I made a TRT in the 111 and it looks fine (1st TRT). The second TRT is from the 109 in my dad’s PC. It now looks much better than when it sat in my PC, but it’s also a lot slower near the end (UDMA is active, no idea what’s the cause).

In my PC it would try to go up to 12x at the end, but failed and speed would drop to 5x or lower. The typical TRT where speed would go down near the end in deep ups and downs. Pity I never saved on of those TRT’s but it doesn’t matter, it wasn’t the discs but somehow the drive as it would do that with every single disc, even pressed ones. Besides, the PIF cluster here is at the start anyway.

Most importantly, my Pio 111 is a lot better in verification (faster), so that’s good news. The fact the disc does a good TRT also means it’s a keeper I take it, CD Pirate?

And finally, a scan from the nastier ones from the Plextor batch, for your perusal.

Moomin





#12

Hi :slight_smile:
I entirely disregard most small in-specs PIF clusters on proven stable media (here I can’t say, I don’t have data, yet, about T03 stability : my first burns with them are less than 6 months old…).

The exception is when the defect is visible in the form of a dark spot, which means either the dye was defective to start with, or there was some impurity on the surface during burning (speck of dust…). Laser obstruction (during burn) is not a real issue in most cases (very small unburnt spots) as the error correction system nicely compensates for it (most of the consecutive PIF clusters stay in-specs), but since laser diffraction can also occur (during burn) around the impurity, I’m worried that some burned areas around the spot could be less stable than the rest of the disc, so I reburn if it’s something really important. Pure conjecture from my part, no hard evidence as yet, on the contrary the discs in my collection with such clusters caused by laser obstruction/diffraction seem to be just as stable as the rest of my discs, so it’s probably a non-issue.

PIF levels there rise to 5-8 as well
Anything out-of-specs I [I]would[/I] reburn (unless we’re talking PIONEER or NEC scans :bigsmile: ).

Check your blanks, before burning, for small impurities on the surface…:wink: - when talking about very good media, that’s the main cause of these permanent PIF clusters.

BTW have you checked that these are [I]permanent[/I], i.e. have you tried to dust the disc and re-scan? :wink:


#13

I always check my discs before putting them in the burner and remove all visible specs and dustparticles. If a disc has spots that don’t come off (usually scratches at the outer rim) I put them in a seperate pile from which I use discs if I don’t need to fill them completely.

In all cases mentioned with this batch of Plextors, there’s absolutely nothing visible, no bright or dark spots in the dye, no dust, nada. Which worries me a bit, since I have no clue what’s causing the PIF clusters. SMall impertfections not visible with the naked eye may cause a few PIFs but such dense clustering… you’d expect to see [I]something[/I]

Anyway, thanks for your opinion, Franck!

Moomin


#14

Not [I]that[/I] dense. :disagree:
Don’t join the foolish flock of scans-over-analysing flying freaks. :wink: :bigsmile:

See the first attached scan and its PIF clusters, nothing is visible to the naked eye. Most of my CMCMAG E01 have several of such small PIF clusters like yours on T03, and nothing is ever visible. :shrug:

The second scan is an illustration of what I’d personally call a worrying PIF cluster. :bigsmile: (well, I guess anyone would worry with such an ugly cluster… ;))

Despite this, this disc is perfectly usable, and seems perfectly stable. So… don’t get too worried with your small clusters on T03 :wink:




#15

In the end, the discs are readable and if you have really important data you should just rescan them:

  1. in a month after the burn
  2. 3 months
  3. 6 months
  4. 1 year
  5. after then every 6 months.

But you shouldn’t forget to do that, especially on the disc’s first year, because otherwise you’re risking to get something like I’ve recently got here :bigsmile: :doh: :Z :
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1712126&postcount=280


#16

Hey moomin, I used to have a 109 and it had the funky TRT. I guess it got too old. BUT DON’T GET RID OF IT!!!

It can be used as a great way of scanning. Since most disks will probably not TRT perfect, you know the ones that do TRT perfect on the 109 are somehow more readable to it and perhaps better!

I remember some verbatim +R 8x burned in the LG would not TRT perfect but ones in the 111 did. The 111 lower errors and jitter. So the 109 in a way, I believe, could display this with a TRT.