EVERYTHING I KNOW IS WRONG... or it seems that way when it comes to testing burns!

[ulTRAX]

I've been burning backups now for a year and I thought I pretty much understood what I was doing. But I need a realty check.

I'd been doing Nero PIE/PIF tests at 4x as someone once recommended. But then I had a disk that would not start so I retested. PIE/PIFs were above what I originally tested but not bad.... 100/3.

Yet when I did a test at 1X I was shocked to see a whole new pattern emerge. Bad dye distribution on the edges kicked the PIFs up to 10.

Yet that was at the end of the disk.... and the start-up must have something to do with the inside... and there were no big errors in either Nero and the CRC test from DVD Info Pro was clean.

So just what are these tests even telling if they can't find problems and the 4X test is so unreliable?

Should I always test at 1X?

And what is the difference between PIF and POs? I noticed the DVD Info Pro tool tests for POs.... which I assume means parity outer error...

[ulTRAX]

Which raises another question... are the errors in that disk correctable? Can I make a copy of the backup and get LOWER error rates than the original? Actually I know I can when error rates are below 280/4... but what about 10 max PIFs? At what point are they NOT correctable?

Thanks!

[Chewy]

PIE's are a little bad, PIF's more so, POF's coaster indicators

the quality score below 50 is another indicator of a near coaster
or a sure coaster after enough time.

are your transfer tests smooth?

[Chewy]

I remade over 100 disks that scanned 0, with TY(MIJ) media that
will all scan 95+. Good thing it's digital video data.

[ulTRAX]

PIE's are a little bad, PIF's more so, POF's coaster indicators

the quality score below 50 is another indicator of a near coaster
or a sure coaster after enough time.

are your transfer tests smooth?

I just learned about transfer tests in another thread here. What sort of test is it? Is it more telling of problem burns than PIE/PIF tests? I was under the assumption that PIEs should be below 280 and PIFs below 4 the latter gives a Nero quality score of 90% I believe. But at what level are errors not correctable on a reburn?

[UncasMS]

the quality score below 50 is another indicator of a near coaster
or a sure coaster after enough time.

i dont think i'll second that

different speeds for the quality scan can make huge differences and different drives to do the scan will add another factor to the equation

[Chewy]

i dont think i'll second that

different speeds for the quality scan can make huge differences and different drives to do the scan will add another factor to the equation

It's very subjective, if a new burn scores 50, then with age and use, it will get worse. And that initial measurement depends upon the use of an adequate scanner which is setup right. It's only a guidline. The new
nec 4550/3550 report very similar scores at 5x,8x and 12x.
I just scanned the first 500 MB of a test data disk at 4x and max, both scored 97 with my benq.

http://www.hoh.de/index.htm?hardware_laufwerke_dvd_brenner.htm

[UncasMS]

tried different speeds for the quality scan with the 4550 today and the results were not at all similar

some tests wouldnt even complete successfully

[Chewy]

burn a MIJ disk at 8x and test

they are just about as picky as the benq's

and they seem to do better with +r media

[cynthia]

different speeds for the quality scan can make huge differences and different drives to do the scan will add another factor to the equation

Same behaviour as I noted on my different burners and used speeds. Seems that 1X gives you best results.

[Chewy]

After scanning for a few months with my nec 3520 and 3540, I noticed
some similar variations, mostly from scanning at max on so so burns, especially disks overspeeded. To baseline your scanner get a disk
of highest quality and scan, repeat at same speed(the optimal scanning
speed for that scanner), say 5x for nec 3540, if you get 2 scores of 95 and 97
then you're lucky(2% variance), protect than burner, you got a good scanner.
Something a lot rarer than a good burner. Now to increase the precision of a nec 3540, add the dword value to the registry to set a 1 ecc interval.
Recent benq's and a few liteons are the best scanners. Last but not least
you have to consider read errors when scanning, that's why a poor reader
scans best at 1x. Damn shame a burner like the LG4163B can't scan,
cause it's the best reader I have ever tested.

[soup]

Damn shame a burner like the LG4163B can't scan,
cause it's the best reader I have ever tested.

Maybe somebody should mention it to LG.

[Chewy]

I think they are content to make the fastest premium longest lasting burner on the market. If I had to give up all my burners but one, I'd keep the LG and quit scanning.
Of course I never had a NEC 3500.

[UncasMS]

Of course I never had a NEC 3500.

which doesn allow scanning ^_~

talking of scans
here are the results using 1x, 5x and 8x speed with the nec 4550:

[Chewy]

be very interesting to see a transfer graph with that old MIJ disk