Yuden000T02 scaned with 811s is giving false results

[ako]

up until now my liteon 811s has been a prety good burner, and the discs it has scaned with kprobe or cd speed have been realistick to whats on the disc ie: bad kprobe = bad disc with doddgy play back and transfer rate test, good kprobe = good disc with good play back and transfer rate test.

i brought some fuji 8X T02s which i burned with my NEC 3500 LD_V2B4, they burn fine at all speeds upto 16X with no fall backs. and speed transfer rates are good. but when i scan them using kprobe 2.4.2 or cd speed 3.50 i get sky high pis and far more pif`s than i would expect. so i scaned one in my freinds 812s and that was fine

i have been using HSOK for months so i tried scanning with HSOR and got simular results, is there anything apart from changing firmware to get my drive scanning these discs propely. it scans maxell 4X T01`s datawrite 8X MCC03 and many others ok. this is the first time its done anything like this and is very strange.

all attached scans are from the same fuji 8X T02`s made in japan (fuji germany) burned at 8X using NEC 3500 LD_V2B4.

[roypalma]

Try to scan the disc at 6X with your 811S when you use the HS0R firmware (strange, but it works, at 4X the PI is 5-10 times higher than at 6X???).

I also suddenly had very bad scans with 401S@811S (FW: HS0R) at 4X. When I scanned the disc with my BenQ 1620 it was OK. I then scanned the disc with my LiteOn at 6X and I got a scan which were almost as good as the one I got with BenQ.

[ako]

Try to scan the disc at 6X with your 811S when you use the HS0R firmware (strange, but it works, at 4X the PI is 5-10 times higher than at 6X???).

just scaned the disc at 6X with Kprobe, scan started at 2.8X slowly incresing until the 50% mark (approx) it hit 4.8X and the pis pifs suddenly dropped to what i was getting when scaned at 4X with the 812s. its very strange how its only ever done it with this media, as i`ve done about 10 discs so far and they were all the same.

[rdgrimes]

There’s no such thing as “false results” with Kprobe, except when your sample rate is too low. (then the results are too low).

Your results are an accurate representation of how the 811 is reading the discs.
There’s a number of reasons for this type of issue, but no way to really sort out what it is. My hunch is that you’ve gotton one of those batches of Fuji TY that some people are reporting trouble with. The 811 is not known for it’s consistant scanning performance, but it is telling you that it has trouble reading the discs. I would try scanning one at 1x to see if it’s really that far out of spec.

The comparitively low PIF values is the clue. One would expect them to be higher with PI errors in that range.

[ako]

There’s no such thing as “false results” with Kprobe,

i did ponder on the title for a while, if it could be changed by a mod to somthing more appropriate.

Your results are an accurate representation of how the 811 is reading the discs.

thats what i thought because it seems to be seeing the burning speed changes are shown in the pi`s when scanned at 4X.

There’s a number of reasons for this type of issue, but no way to really sort out what it is. My hunch is that you’ve gotton one of those batches of Fuji TY that some people are reporting trouble with.

thats what i though, and am in comuniction with APR media about them.

The 811 is not known for it’s consistant scanning performance, but it is telling you that it has trouble reading the discs. I would try scanning one at 1x to see if it’s really that far out of spec

i`ll test it at 1X

thanks

[ako]

just finished the 1X scan and its amazingly simular to the 812s scan

so which one is the most accurate? the 811s scan at 4X or the 812s@4X/811s@1X?

and i thought i new somthing about kprobe :o

[rdgrimes]

I realize that this is not the answer you wanted, but all the scans are “accurate”. You are simply seeing the difference in how the disc behaves in that reader at those speeds. The 811 is known for this. Best explanation is that the disc is of marginal quality. You don’t usually see this on discs burned in an NEC, it’s far more common with discs burned in a LiteOn.
There are several things that can cause it, could be an unbalanced disc, a disc that’s not quite round, or a disc on which the “pre-groove” is not quite where it should be. Bottom line is that it’s just a tad difficult for the 811 to read it.

Personally, if I was used to seeing 4x scans that look much better than that, I’d assume the disc was not up to my standards. But if it reads well enough in other drives, you can also accept that. It’s your choice.

[ako]

I realize that this is not the answer you wanted, but all the scans are “accurate”. You are simply seeing the difference in how the disc behaves in that reader at those speeds. The 811 is known for this. Best explanation is that the disc is of marginal quality. You don’t usually see this on discs burned in an NEC, it’s far more common with discs burned in a LiteOn.
There are several things that can cause it, could be an unbalanced disc, a disc that’s not quite round, or a disc on which the “pre-groove” is not quite where it should be. Bottom line is that it’s just a tad difficult for the 811 to read it.

that is a very good answer

Personally, if I was used to seeing 4x scans that look much better than that, I’d assume the disc was not up to my standards. But if it reads well enough in other drives, you can also accept that. It’s your choice.

i don`t think they are upto standard and as they were sold as grade A then i will continue my complate with the suppliers.

thankyou for your comments rdgrimes.

[Nemesys]

My 811S did the exact same thing.

Sky high PIs (1200 to 1400) on Fuji T02 media and I wasted three quarters of the 50 PK spindle testing with different firmware and every thing I could think of.

I decided to buy a ND-3500A but the 811S still showed excessively high values on the scan with T02 media, even those burned with the NEC. I continued to waste media testing. I decided to buy some MAXELL 002 but the results were the same. It didn’t matter if the media was burned on the 3500A or the 811S. I wasted about half of the 15 PK spindle testing. Bought some Sony T02 media and wasted about a third of the 50 PK spindle.
The only media the 811S would scan well is the RICOHJPNR01, everything thing else would have PIs in the thousands.

Solution:
I threw the 811S in the garbage and bought a 1633S.
Discs previously scanned with the 811S which reported PI/PIF of 1200/280 are now reported at 9/2 with the 1633S.

The 811S is not a good drive for scanning.

[ako]

The 811S is not a good drive for scanning.

that mite have been the case with your 811s. but i have scaned many different medias with mine including: datawrite 8X+R MCC03-datawrite 8X-R TTG02-piodata 8X G05-piodata 8X CMC MAG AE1-Fujifilm 4X M02-Maxell 4X Yuden000T01 to name a few. and the only ones to give odd results are the Fuji branded Yuden00T02 serial number TG001133.

[TCDEAN79]

I experienced the same desception with my 811s. It can’t be trusted for scanning TY-T02’s thats all I know. You can do a dvd/cd speed test with the drive or any other drive and get good results but don’t expect the KPROBE to be anything worth paying attention too. I know RDGRIMES will dissagree but tested experience with MY DRIVE will say I’m right every time. I wouldn’t say the 811s sucks I still use it for backwards compatibility for slower media. My experience has been that the 1633 doesn’t much care for 4x media but the 811s does great with it. Guess they figured nobody would still be using 4x mediat when they did the firmware course this is just my experience I may have a “special drive”

[K-Dizzle]

I get bad scans too with my 851@832 using Fuji-branded TY 8x +R’s w/Serial no. TG001133. The thing is, I’d get really high PI levels (400-900) and ok PIFs (<4). But the DVD played fine in my stand alone DVD player. Has anyone bothered scanning the “bad” media in another drive? Maybe another brand?

[ako]

Has anyone bothered scanning the “bad” media in another drive?

check my first post, thats the reason i started this thread, because of the difference in scans between my 811s and my freinds 812s.

[K-Dizzle]

oh - heehe my bad.

So what do you think? The discs seem good when scanned/played elsewhere, so should we continue burning the Fuji TYs and disregard the scans they return?

[ako]

So what do you think? The discs seem good when scanned/played elsewhere, so should we continue burning the Fuji TYs and disregard the scans they return?

over the weekend i have been doing transfer rate test with both my nec 3500 and 811s and everyone has come out with nice curves and no horrible speed drops. so iam starting to lean towards the scans iam getting with these discs using my 811s are not reliable.
iam sure i burned a couple at 16X when i first got them, if i have time later ill try a couple more at 16X and if they burn ok and transfer rate are good then i`ll give scanning these discs a miss.

[cnlson]

same problem as you with a 411 here when i scanned with a benq or my now scanning drive a 1633s.

my theory which i am not going to defend OR try and find evidence for is that
these drives may have something similar to a write strat for reading and as with generic write strats if the media does not fall into a “read strat” that is known it gives horrible pi/pif.

out of curiousity what speed would the TY burn in that 811? i think generic is either 2x or 4x max…

[ako]

out of curiousity what speed would the TY burn in that 811? i think generic is either 2x or 4x max…

the write strat looks fine for the Yuden000T02, see attactment.

i burned 3 discs at 16X on my nec3500 LD_v2b6 and there was no drop of in speed and they give perfect transfer rates, dj_phatic has the same problem when scaning using a 851s, he is getting a Benq soon so i`ll post back then.

[rdgrimes]

my theory which i am not going to defend OR try and find evidence for is that
these drives may have something similar to a write strat for reading and as with generic write strats if the media does not fall into a “read strat” that is known it gives horrible pi/pif.

Close. Every individual drive will show a reading “preference” for some media, some read speeds, and even for media burned at a specific speed. Different firmware versions will also affect reading to a small degree.
This is one reason why we keep saying that you should not compare scans done in different drives or different firmware.

Consider what is being reported in a scan, and how. There is no “strat” for this, only the way that the laser focuses on the disc, and the way that particular disc reflects the light. Firmware changes that affect the performance of the drive mechanics will most certainly alter reading performance as well, as most of the mechanics are the same in reading and writing. Only the laser power calibration varies in writing, not in reading.

But the bottom line is that a really good burn will scan well all the time in every drive. Those discs that are “middling” will produce the widely varying results that are the subject of this thread. These, and the crappy burns, are the ones that separate the good readers from the not so good.