Img Write speed

[Mike89]

So what is the quality score supposed to be to be deemed good?

When doing this quality test, is the speed in the test supposed to be set at the same speed it was burned?

I don't know what the difference is between the two tests I ran.

Meanwhile this disk plays perfect. So what's the deal on that? I mean what is the test really telling me?

I'm kind of blown away from this graph stuff. I've seen threads of nothing but graphs with no real world translation of the relevance. I read many posts about failed burns and all this crappy media stuff, the right speed burn speed stuff, and I kind of trip out cause this is not happening to me. I don't get failed burns. I take that back, I've had one that I can remember (at least I think it was cause the player wouldn't play it) and maybe one or two that skipped a couple of times. And those were burned at 4x! I go, "like what's the deal here"?. And if I tell you teckheads what media's I use, you'll all probably ban me to hell! To date, the only disks I have used are HP, Memorex, Sony, and Staples! How's that for being a neanderthal?! Meanwhile I don't have burn problems (I'm guessing I've probably burned a couple of hundred disks) and my movies play fine! Go figure! I've had my share of issues but they have been related to program and user errors problems. When I got to the burn, it has always worked out for me (without me looking at the graphs which I don't understand anyway). If my experiences change, maybe I'll have to go a different direction but for now the one I'm on works. What's the old saying, "if it ain't broke, no need to fix it".

[nwg]

All I know, is you want a quality score as close to 100 as possible. A near perfect result should be 95 and up.

[Mike89]

Here is same movie a third time burned at 4x with the test ran at 5X (still don't know what the test speed is supposed to be set at)


Now I see I got a quality score this time, dunno how good (or bad) that's supposed to be.

Meanwhile both burns were successful and play and look the same.

Graphs say something different but the end result is the same. Now if someone can show me that the quality of what shows on the screen is different from two burn speeds, I'm all ears. As far as one lasting longer than another. Kind of hard to prove.

[Chewy]

mike,
when you scan at max you are simply adding read errors to the burn errors,
a simple test is take some of your burns and see if they are readable on your computer, not playable, use dvdd or shrink to transfer back to your harddrive.
running a transfer rate test is another measure of quality(a very useful one).

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=65716

btw that thread has had ~11,000 views in a little over 3 months

mike that last scan is good for the media and old burner, surprised that cpu let you use that old burner

here's a simulation of how I made a coaster with ImgBurn and max burn speed setting

[copyless]

Mike, also a good way to decide what speed to scan at, is take that last DVD you posted, and scan it at 4x, 8x, 12x. Then see which one results in the best PIF score, then stick with that scan speed. It does not matter what speed the disc was burned at. But that burn is a whole lot better than the others. As far as playing goes, be grateful that you have a very forgiving player, as the next one may not be so forgiving. The first scans you posted would in no way play in several of my players, in the other two of them probably. Your next player may not be so forgiving, unless you give Chewy's suggestion a try, you may find that you back ups that not only will not play in your new player, but also that can not be read by your computer, played yes, but read no.

Chewy, Thanks, I have spent a whole lot of time in a short period studying so that I may be able to pass the test.

[Mike89]

Another one on HP media at a 4x burn. Tested on my other drive (not a burner)



What do you mean my burner is old? It's not that old, maybe 1 1/2 years. I don't need to go buy a new burner every year. It was and still is a dam good burner (or I wouldn't be getting the results I'm getting). If I did that test copying back to computer, why would I use Shrink or DVDD? I would just copy and paste over (copy protection has already been stripped).

[Mike89]

Here is one burned on a Sony disk at 8x.


Seems the Sony disks are the best quality of what I'm using, even though I still haven't experienced any differences. I am listening though. I'm a little hard headed but not totally. It's like the UFO and alien stuff, I gotta see one for myself before I believe it! Heh heh

[Chewy]

If you haven't used the 3520 that much, it could still be good, mine were OK when new, when I noticed them going down hill I retired them to more part time use.

try a transfer test with one of those high speed burns

[Mike89]

Here is same one as before (Sony) switched over to the NEC 3520a.

[Chewy]

It's probably showing it's wear some, the Taiyo Yuden disks are the best to test with, that and the verbatims. 8X is usually a safe burn speed with good media and a good burner.