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

[UncasMS]

that old MIJ disk

?

[Chewy]

your bios reset itself or you're time traveling?

what speed did you burn at, write strats have changed on that media?

[UncasMS]

- the bios wasnt touched yet - bought the 4550 yesterday
- burning speed was 6x
- write strats according to original nec fw

[Chewy]

your scans say disk info from 2003 datum

give it a few more burns with that media

[UncasMS]

the burning was done yesterday, it was the 5th in a row

the data was created in 2003 ^_~

[ulTRAX]

I'm lost in the above discussion.... what is transfer test?

As for the Nero Disk Quality charts above for Die Hard 2... my experience has always been that I get HIGHER error rates the slower I do a PIE/PIF test... yet those charts show the reverse.... LOWER errors at 1X tests than 4X... or 8X.

[UncasMS]

that's exactly what i'm driving at:

dont give too much on other ppl's scan pix

^_~

[Chewy]

my datum with cdspeed is when disk was burned according to the clock
on the computer it was burned at

[Chewy]

I'm lost in the above discussion.... what is transfer test?

As for the Nero Disk Quality charts above for Die Hard 2... my experience has always been that I get HIGHER error rates the slower I do a PIE/PIF test... yet those charts show the reverse.... LOWER errors at 1X tests than 4X... or 8X.

with liteon family drives stay with 4x, they have a 1 ecc vs 8ecc with most other drives,

there are 2 very useful tools in cdspeed besides quality scans
make a data disk then do a transfer test on it

see this thread

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=60472&page=3

[Chewy]

well even verbatim's aren't perfect(large clump of spikes)
burned at 8x
this scan at reccomended speed(8x)

compare QS and circled numbers(the important PIF)
with the next scan

in the 2nd scan at 16x, you see the important numbers are the same
but there is a large curve in the PIE at the end when the scanner is
going too fast(read errors)

[geno888]

Usually scans are made at a speed above 1x because it's less time consuming. Moreover, if scan is good @4x (or 8x or 5x according to the drive used to scan), @1x will be surely good.

Scanning at a speed higher than 1x is a good compromise between scan reliability and time consuming.

[bigmacnc]

Here is a site that explains media and Testing:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm

About halfway down he starts explaining testing. I think I originally found this link on this site.

Mack

[ulTRAX]

well even verbatim's aren't perfect(large clump of spikes)
burned at 8x
this scan at reccomended speed(8x)

compare QS and circled numbers(the important PIF)
with the next scan

in the 2nd scan at 16x, you see the important numbers are the same
but there is a large curve in the PIE at the end when the scanner is
going too fast(read errors)

I don't get it... I use the Nero Disk Quality test and if I get just 1 PIF the quality score goes down to 98, 2 PIFs the score is 95.

You have a spike of 8 PIFs yet your score is 95. Mine might be 60. I also have the colored zones... so 0-4 is OK.... 5-10 is intermediate.... above 10 (not sure since I was there only once) was a red zone.

[Chewy]

You are talking apples and oranges! Your sony/liteon uses an 1 ecc scanning interval, my nec/benq uses an 8 ecc. Our scores compare because cdspeed
calculated the QS differently according to the scanning interval. It's an apple/orange translator.

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=96285

[ulTRAX]

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

Assuming the use of the same drive, I've noticed that the slower I do a scan the more errors it brings out. Is this what you see?

What I'm looking for is a way to test burns initially but also track any disk deterioration over time. So if the 4X quality tests aren't giving me a good idea of either... for instance failing to find the 10 PIF spikes in one disk (1 ecc scan), should I just do 1X tests because they offer the best accuracy/repeatability?

Is that 10 PIF failure so great that it's not correctable? Should I go back to the original disk and start from scratch? Or can I make a copy of the original backup and expect those errors to be corrected?