Nero CD-DVD Speed, a great tool

[Chewy]

sonic,
that was a very informative set of graphs and shows the usefullness of
these tests, I am surprised the new nec did such a good job with that mid
up to almost 16x speed, don't waste any more disks but if you get a chance to burn an iso with the create disk part set burn speed at 8x and just repeat the transfer test and the quality scan and that will tell us even more. What we will find out is whether the media is worst at the edge or the burn craps out around 15x speed, set the transfer test to max at 12x also, nec is having problems reading it's own burn at 12x. Don't ever think this is simple to figure out. None of this makes any sense when you are using inconsistent media.
those were MIJ sony's?

rescan that disk at 8x and repost please(QS only)



and whatever happened with zero? This was all his idea, vbg!

more bubble baths?

[Chewy]

8x dvd+r branded as windata(yuden clone/fakes) made in hong kong

MID : YUDEN000 T02 (000)
Write speeds: : 2.4 X - 4 X - 8 X
Blank Capacity : 4.38 GB
benq 1650 burner @8x, scanned @8x

now the interesting part the benq decided to burn it at 4x
no wonder a pif of 370 at the very beginning

[dmanshead]

so my liteon doesn't show jitter?

[sonic_emperor]

sonic,
None of this makes any sense when you are using inconsistent media.
those were MIJ sony's?

rescan that disk at 8x and repost please(QS only)

hi chewy,these sonys are only class 1 media in cicrle of 60km where i live,so i decided to buy them,instead of those DAMN ritekgo5s traxdatas(i recently bought a new dvd standalone for my bedroom - a lot of those have errors - they are falling apart!!! and i made at least 60 back ups)
anyways,these sonys are made in taiwan(if mij means "made in japan")

+this qscan is really a surprise,thinking that the last one did so low!

[Chewy]

sonic, forget 16x quality scanning, at that fast a read you are graphing read errors on top of burn errors. Does this make sense to everyone?

or at least that's my theory(story) and I'm sticking to it

[soup]

Let me see, you have already got the burn errors so by reading at too fast a rate you are compounding the problem & making it look a whole lot worse than it actually is. Is that close or?

[Chewy]

Let me see, you have already got the burn errors so by reading at too fast a rate you are compounding the problem & making it look a whole lot worse than it actually is. Is that close or?

that's my view, so I scan at different speeds and settle on the fastest and best scans. 1x would probably give you the best scan but who wants to wait that long.

[sonic_emperor]

i burned two images,but it seems that i forgot to "take picture" of the second one(acurate one) a sthe first one is graph from benchmark

[Zero G]

sonic,
that was a very informative set of graphs and shows the usefullness of
these tests, I am surprised the new nec did such a good job with that mid
up to almost 16x speed, don't waste any more disks but if you get a chance to burn an iso with the create disk part set burn speed at 8x and just repeat the transfer test and the quality scan and that will tell us even more. What we will find out is whether the media is worst at the edge or the burn craps out around 15x speed, set the transfer test to max at 12x also, nec is having problems reading it's own burn at 12x. Don't ever think this is simple to figure out. None of this makes any sense when you are using inconsistent media.
those were MIJ sony's?

rescan that disk at 8x and repost please(QS only)



and whatever happened with zero? This was all his idea, vbg!

more bubble baths?

Will try this tonight. Got busy the last few days with something else.

[geno888]

My suggestion is to state some standards, like in cdfreaks.

All nec scans should be posted at the same speed, so results are comparable. The best speed for NEC drives shouldn't be selected as the speed that show the best results, but as the speed that show the more reliable results.

The only way to state this speed is to compare nec scans with a scan of the same disc done with a liteon or a plextor drive (both liteon and plextor are reliable drives for scans). These comparisons were already done at cdfreaks, and it seems that the more reliable speed for scanning is 5x.

@Blutach
Sorry, I don't know how to do this; I agree with anonymez: probably is necessary a registry modification.

[Chewy]

My suggestion is to state some standards, like in cdfreaks.

yes, I would suggest people giving some details as to brand of dvd and burn speed and country of manufacture

All nec scans should be posted at the same speed, so results are comparable. The best speed for NEC drives shouldn't be selected as the speed that show the best results, but as the speed that show the more reliable results

.

over at cdfreaks the 3550 thru 455x are using my method to determine
best scan speed, that's where I came up with it from, each drive seems to scan best at a different speed

The only way to state this speed is to compare nec scans with a scan of the same disc done with a liteon or a plextor drive (both liteon and plextor are reliable drives for scans).

for some this is possible, most won't have that luxury, the nec's are too picky a scanner

[geno888]

for some this is possible, most won't have that luxury, the nec's are too picky a scanner

Yes, I know. And is for this reason that I suggest to use CDF standards: they already did the job.

I'll post some scans soon (sorry, I'm a little busy now)

[Zero G]

Ok I finally had a chance to make a test disc. Here's the results.

[sonic_emperor]

hi zero,are your sony from taiwan as well?

[codajohn]

Hey Zero,
That looks almost the same as my scan with my Benq 1650. Post #20