YUDEN000T03 under different brands: batches and variations in quality

vbimport

#1

I have just opened a new spindle of Plextor branded 16x DVD+R YudenT03’s, batch number TH000021. Just arrived from Alternate, Germany.

And although my previous spindles of the same brand and type were exactly the same batch number, quality of those was 10 times better (the typical TY scans you can find here in the forum)

I’m particularly disgusted with the PIF results. I’ve had a few scans where PIF peaked several times over 4. Never seen that happen on a TY disc before.

Is this the current quality of Plextor/TY media? Or did I somehow get the dregs of a production run (I thought Plextor was supposed to get the best TY produced?)

Burned with a Pioneer DVR109, latest firmware (the same drive that the previous spindles produced excellent results on). A test burn with a Plextor 716 1.10 produced even worse results.


#2

I wouldnt be concerned by the PIF max, rather the PIE and PIF totals are of concern, within spec yes, but well above what i get on TH000021. I have noticed that within a spindle the discs can be extremely variable;

The first scan however is an exception, ive never had below a 95/6 QS aside from this one disc.


#3

[I]Hot truck syndrome[/I] maybe? (read: improper storing due to carelessness, either from the seller or the intermediates: heat, humidity, shocks…)

No media is impervious to environmental conditions and human behaviour. :frowning:

Of course, could be a lesser batch, though I wouldn’t be too worried about the real-world performance of these discs. After all, as long as the TRT is perfect and the discs are stable, these PIE/PIF figures are only of cosmetic concern (unless they get worse after some time of course).


#4

Is it not reasonable to expect that T03 media from same brand with same batch code should at least burn fairly similarly? (using digital error scans as measurement). This is the 2nd time recently I have seen below typical of the batch TH000021 scans being posted :frowning:

Stability of T03 is too unproven for me to trust any archival data to it. It is not equal to T02/MCC004 IMO.


#5

Yep, in theory… that’s why I was thinking of the infamous “[I]hot truck syndrome[/I]”. I’ve seen far worse cases of blanks ruined by improper storing by sellers and intermediates. Like in these shops where they leave the blanks under a window, in direct sunlight, during all summer. :rolleyes:


#6

Yeah… Fracnk is right. I never thought of it but you never know how long media has been sitting on the shelf for, in what humidity etc. You also don’t know if the conditions used to ship it across countries etc were crappy.

Perhaps people have been blaming manufacturers for something they have no control over.

But either way, don’t be too harsh, the disc is in spec fairly comfortably. If the TRT is fine and it works in your dvd player etc then there’s no need to be worried or anything. Don’t take PI/PIF scanning so seriously. :slight_smile:


#7

Thanks for your replies. I’ll try Plextor one more time from a different dealer (have to find a cheap one in Germany that will ship internationally as they’re hideously expensive over here - darn copyright taxes).

What does TRT stand for?

Moomin


#8

TRT - Transfer Rate test. Basically, in Nero CD speed, click the “Benchmark” Tab and then up the top menu, click “Run Test” then select “Transfer Rate” from there. It scans your media at full speed. This is what a rooted Ritek G04 looks like.

The line should not go all spastic like you see here. It represents slowdown in read speed when it happens and means your drive is struggling to read the disc because it’ has scratches/is poorly burnt etc.

You may get small “blips” here and there, I find that they happen when I am doing something on the PC and a TRT at the same time. It’s just a CPU thing. But the massive slowdowns you can see are unmissable in this Ritek G04 (see right at the end of the graph).



#9

For cheap european dealers that ship internationally check out this thread / post: click

Alternate is actually one of the more expensive german dealers, and those german dealers that emigrated to Luxembourg to avoid GEMA are even cheaper than the cheapest local dealers, probably the cheapest in Europe.


#10

I checked all shops in that thread, none have Plextor. I used to buy from www.cdrwinkel.com, but they no longer ship to my country due to legal reasons.

Running speedtest in Nero as I write this, but I expect it to be normal. Just a pity these discs are not useful for archival purposes, that’s 100 discs down the drain (don’t need them for anything else) :frowning:

Moomin


#11

What country are you from?

Plextor media is made by Taiyo Yuden Japan, and all of the shops I linked to do have Taiyo Yuden media in stock. There is no difference in quality, that’s why you can buy those instead. svp.co.uk is definitely worth a try as well, and they do have Plextor media in stock.

But if it has to be a german dealer, and if it has to be the Plextor brand, check out the following links to geizhals.at/de, something like the german pricewatch:

Plextor 16x DVD+R 25pcs cakebox:

http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a63858.html

Plextor 16x DVD+R 50pcs cakebox:

http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a228286.html


#12

From all the info I have read, people seem to be of the opinion that Plextor gets the best from TY, whereas others especially no name are B grade TY.

I’ve had no-name CDRs from TY, and they could not be read after a year.

So I like to stick to brands that I can (could?) trust. I’d go for Verbatim but no store mentions if their MCC004 are Prodisc or CMC.

SVP is a nice store but same price/more expensive than Alternate. I’ll try some shops through Geizhals.

Thanks for all the tips!

Here’s the TRT from that first disc

Moomin



#13

svp.co.uk has Verbatim branded Taiyo Yuden discs at an excellent price (25 pcs cakeboxes), probably the lowest price for genuine Taiyo Yuden media in Europe these days. You really should check those out, even with higher shipping costs that price will be very hard to beat by anyone.

Having tested a lot of Taiyo Yuden media myself, I actually believe that “Plextor gets the best from TY” statement to be a myth. Some of my best TY burns were made with “unbranded” TY discs, both CD and DVD, while some of the worst were Plextor, Verbatim etc. “branded” discs, it all depends on the batch. And yes, Plextor, Verbatim, Sony and whatnot do have some bad TY batches now and then, too.

TY quality in general is very consistent though, that’s why bad batches are relatively rare.


#14

Also SVP’s customer service is second to none. Try them. There are many very satisfied customers on these boards, including me :slight_smile:


#15

[B][I]I’d go for Verbatim but no store mentions if their MCC004 are Prodisc or CMC.
Just a pity these discs are not useful for archival purposes, that’s 100 discs down the drain (don’t need them for anything else)[/I][/B]

Hmmm, there is no real difference between CMC made Verbatim and Prodisc Verbatim. They are both good.

Not for archival? All you have to do is whack it in a case, store it well without scratches or UV light and there you go, archival media. Seriously, those TY should be fine. 100 disc down the drain my butt. You can flush them down my drain if you don’t want them anymore :smiley:


#16

Count me in :smiley:

ust a pity these discs are not useful for archival purposes
Here I go again…

[B]An original PIE/PIF scan is NEVER, EVER, a way to determine lifespan/stability[/B]. I’m rarely 100% positive about something, but here I am. That’s a fact based on lots of testing an experiments from my part, not a mere opinion. You can have discs showing very ugly PIE/PIF scans that will be rock stable, and discs showing fantastic PIE/PIF scans that will die in less than 18 months. It’s all down to the manufacturing quality and the burning process, that impact the [I]degradation rate[/I] of the discs.

Here’s what I’d do if I were you, if you’re really scared with these Plextors: burn 8-10 of these, then use other discs for some time, then re-scan these burnt Plextors in 6 months. Then only, by comparing the scans with the original ones, you can have an appreciation of their stability. You have no other method at hand.

Judging of “archival quality” of media/burns by looking at their original PIE/PIF scans is about as sound and reliable as using a crystall ball. :bigsmile:


#17

Would you mind terribly if I respectfully disagree with that? :stuck_out_tongue:

While you are right that the manufacturing quality, care taken by the manufacturer and quality of used materials are determining the longivity of media, it is also a fact that in the end all media age.

And the aging shows by increased amounts of errors.

So the less errors you have to begin with, the more lifespan you will be able to get from your media. If you have a fast aging disc, no matter how low your PIE/PIF levels, your disc won’t last long. If you have a long lasting disc, you can start with high PIE/PIF and still have a long lasting disc… but not as long as when you start out with low error levels.

If there was a slight increase in error levels, I wouldn’t be too worried, but we’re talking about a 10fold increase, 1000%! More so for PIF errors.

If such a large jump between discs in the same batch occurs, I would think quality control at TY has taken a steep dive. And will this drop in quality not have affected other factors that also co-determine longivity as well? C’t did some longivity tests on various DVDs, and TY performed well back then. Pity I can’t find an accelerated aging test for Yuden T03, preferably accompanied by scans before and after.

Moomin


#18

I think I agree with Franck here, as I have had 3 year old Infiniti CMC MAG E01’s that have a PIE of 30 all the way across, and pretty constant PIF’s varying between 2 and 4, but they haven’t degraded at all (unfortunately don’t have any scans availible :()


#19

Exactly the same here. :iagree:…and I think I do have scans on here somewhere if required :slight_smile: (and TRTs of each disc, I think)


#20

Well, this sounds terrific on paper, like most theories built without the examination of real-world data.
Personally I tend to forge my opinion from real-world observations, and if these diverge from the theory, I consider the theory as questionable. And in this very case, as soon as I had enough data from my degradation survey, I considered this theory as nonsense.

Yes, assuming that two discs have exactly the same degradation rate, are stored exactly the same way and are handled exactly in the same way, the one with the lowest original BLER might last longer. But there is not even any trace of real-world evidence that it would be so. It’s just conjecture based on simple logic and common sense. These are, sadly, not enough. :disagree:

For this “logical” theory to have any relevance, you must trust conjectures only, and exclude the following observable facts:

  1. All disc models have a different degradation rate, and the difference can be huge. Among discs from the same model, and even the very same batch, there are still differences in the degradation rate.
  2. Disc stability is impacted by handling, storing and environmental conditions like temperature and humidity.

So a disc model that is very stable, stored properly and handled correctly, despite higher reported original BLER figures, will of course last longer than a disc model that is unstable, stored improperly or handled roughly, despite lower reported original BLER figures.

Put differently, and to give real-world examples, a YUDEN000T02 disc showing a so-so original scan, stored properly and handled properly, will most probably outlast a Ritek G05 disc showing a terrific original scan. There is largely enough data and user feedback to consider this as a reliable consideration. Many CMCMAG E01 discs, for example, show original PIE/PIF scans that are really not brillant, though it has been shown that these discs are extremely stable and show no increase in BLER after 2-3 years and are then reliable for long-term storage.

Now add to this the fact that homemade scanning is inaccurate (i.e. reports BLER in a very different way than professional equipement does), thus introducing a bias that can be very misleading, and you should start to realise how unsound it can be to sort out “archival quality” from “non-archival-quality” media by looking at numbers in a homemade PIE/PIF scan just after the burn. That’s simply not the way it works. As I mentioned in my previous post, it’s just as sound and reliable as a crystal ball. Or wild guessing.

If such a large jump between discs in the same batch occurs, I would think quality control at TY has taken a steep dive.
As mentioned above, it can be from other causes. :frowning:

P.S. Fell free to disagreee as much as you like :flower: