Pioneer on compatability.

[Faustus]

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/CDA/Common/ArticleReviewsDetails/0,2651,92097,00.html

interesting read.

[Savant]

A very interesting read indeed... What I found interesting (I'm still reading it - it's preytty large) is that when you look at the matrix of compatibility, they only showed a handful of tests. It's too bad they didn't include a full matrix.

However, when you look over the results, it's interesting how only ONE of the seven players they showed results from was able to play any media that they threw at it.

Alternately, when you look at the 14 brands of media (of which the coverted Pioneer and Apple media are a part) there was an inability of a player to play ALL the media at one time or another. Not ONE of the medias tested (regardless of quality) worked on ALL the players.

They state in the conclusions that:

"The test results demonstrate the danger of using anecdotal evidence or end-user testimonials to determine recordable DVD compatibility. It is quite likely that end users will have a positive experience with one format and brand of media on their players, but another end-user will have a negative experience using a different format or brand of media on the same make and model player.

Only 10 percent of the players we tested played all 39 different format and brands of recordable media correctly. None of the players we tested failed to read all 39 test discs correctly. This means that 90 percent of the players tested had inconsistent results, playing some formats or brands of media well but playing back marginally on other formats and brands of media."

What was EXTREMELY interesting, was the compatibility results for the different brands of media. Pioneer, perhaps one of the most expensive brands on the market, had a lackluster 58% compatibility rating, which was the THIRD LOWEST of the 14 brands rated!

Meanwhile, TDK (who make many of the Generic discs, including the current generics at Meritline) came out at 78%. The 'winner' with a compatibility rating of only 80% was Maxell.

This is a good read for people interested in this onhgoing debate over DVD media quality.

They also validated what I have said all along:

Use low to moderate bitrate encoding for video if the final product will be delivered on a recordable DVD. Although most DVD players and DVD-ROM drives can read recordable DVD discs, these discs often have a higher error rate during playback than replicated discs do, causing the player to reread some data sectors. Using a low to moderate (less than 7Mbps) data rate for video encoding will make the recorded disc a little easier to reread without a visible pause in the video playback, or audio dropout.

So bitrate DOES matter.

Anyway, I have to run but I'm going to give this a better read later. Thanks for the link!

Regards,

Savant

[Eug]

This is not from Pioneer. It's an article originally published at www.dv.com several months ago.

What was EXTREMELY interesting, was the compatibility results for the different brands of media. Pioneer, perhaps one of the most expensive brands on the market, had a lackluster 58% compatibility rating, which was the THIRD LOWEST of the 14 brands rated!

Meanwhile, TDK (who make many of the Generic discs, including the current generics at Meritline) came out at 78%. The 'winner' with a compatibility rating of only 80% was Maxell.

It's also interesting to note that user reviews have long stated some Ritek and most cd-recordable.com media was poor quality. This was confirmed by the tests. Also, Apple media and Maxell did very well, as user reviews have said. TDK's good performance was also expected. Pioneer's mediocre performance was a bit surprising, esp. since they used to be the OEM for Apple media. OTOH, it's now irrelevant, since Pioneer is stopping production of DVD media.

Use low to moderate bitrate encoding for video if the final product will be delivered on a recordable DVD. Although most DVD players and DVD-ROM drives can read recordable DVD discs, these discs often have a higher error rate during playback than replicated discs do, causing the player to reread some data sectors. Using a low to moderate (less than 7Mbps) data rate for video encoding will make the recorded disc a little easier to reread without a visible pause in the video playback, or audio dropout.

Again, this was already well known, and thus the advice to use good quality media, since low quality media cannot handle higher bit-rates.

So in summary, the article validates what everyone has said all along. Poor quality media does poorly.

[BJ_M]

excellent -- but I wonder if the fact that he used "B's Recorder GOLD" http://www.bhacorp.com/products/gold_win.html# had any effect on the results as this app personally ive had bad luck with in testing.

best so far is burning images w/ prassi and dumping stuff to VIDEO_TS folder w/ nero but that just my opinion.

[Savant]

Yuno Eug, you convienently ignored a few points in your blanket statement

So in summary, the article validates what everyone has said all along. Poor quality media does poorly

That's NOT what the article mentioned. Poor quality media is only ONE of MANY factors involved. What they said was:

Conclusion #2: Media brand matters

...but they ALSO said:

Conclusion #3: Player make and model matters

On the other hand you wrote:

It's also interesting to note that user reviews have long stated some Ritek and most cd-recordable.com media was poor quality.

That's interesting since Ritek came out as #2 in the DVD-R(A) category. One has to wonder if they use the same manufacturing plant to make a given media, then why does one media get a better compatability than another? The answer is poor DVD player compatibility, as seen by the fact that only 10% of all players tested could play all media. Also to note that the article mentioned what they felt about "user reviews":

The test results demonstrate the danger of using anecdotal evidence or end-user testimonials to determine recordable DVD compatibility. It is quite likely that end users will have a positive experience with one format and brand of media on their players, but another end-user will have a negative experience using a different format or brand of media on the same make and model player.

However the key point that needs to be made here is:

The test results clearly reveal that the make and model of a DVD player is just as important as the format and brand of recordable media.

'nuff said.

Regards,

Savant

[Eug]

That's interesting since Ritek came out as #2 in the DVD-R(A) category. One has to wonder if they use the same manufacturing plant to make a given media, then why does one media get a better compatability than another?

DVD-R(A) media is professional media. In fact, it's totally incompatible as a media type for burning on consumer machines. DVD-R(A) also costs 10X as much as low-cost DVD-R(G) media. It is well known that in general DVD-R(A) media does better than low cost DVD-R(G) media, because of the customers (ie. DVD authoring pros). I doubt many pros would be spending US$15 per disc to buy media that didn't work consistently. OTOH, the average consumer might be willing to take a chance on $0.99 media for extra copies of home videos. It's almost as if you're suggesting that a company is not capable of making different grades of media.

The test results clearly reveal that the make and model of a DVD player is just as important as the format and brand of recordable media.

Of course it is, and nobody has denied this. Indeed, that's one of the reasons for the existence of the DVD player compatibility list on vcdhelp.com. However, the whole point of our forum reviews of media is to determine which media is the best for overall playability and compatibility. If you share your discs, there's no point in buying cheap low-quality media so that you can only play it back only on a couple of machines. Furthermore, we already know that the same cheap media may not even work consistently on the "better" DVD player models (except for your case scenario where you are willing to limit yourself to low bitrates).

As the article says: "Name brand media are more compatible than off-brand media."

[Savant]

However, the whole point of our forum reviews of media is to determine which media is the best for overall playability and compatibility.

I understand, but the whole point is that there IS no 'best' media since all media is player dependant. What will work on one machine will not work on another. Even the BEST brand will not work on ALL machines. That means a list is pointless since it does not address the fact that even better brands MAY not work.

Maxell tested as the 'best brand' in their test of DVD-R(G), but it only scored 80%. That means a person still has a one in five chance that the media will NOT work on their player. I don't know about you, but those are crappy odds for a 'top of the line' brand.

However with the exception of Ritek and CD-Recordables, the media tested all ranked from 58% (Pioneer) to 80% (Maxell). This means that there is only a roughly 20% spread in the level of quality between the best and worst brands... Overall from a statistical standpoint, it's not really a significant deviation. Had there been scores that ranged from 1%-100%, THEN I would have been more impressed with the significance of the results.

If there was ONE brand that worked on ALL DVD players, no matter WHAT the content/data etc, then I would agree with you 100%. Since if one media manufacturer could do it, so could the rest. However, as there has yet to be a single DVD-R(G) that can play on ALL DVD players, then this is not the case.

What will likely happen is that DVD player manufacturers will spend more time testing media and getting better performance. It was shown that NEWER players were far more compatible than older ones, which shows that player manufacturers are understanding the need to do more work in this regard.

I guess I'm a bit miffed that people don't compile a general list of DVD player manufacturers and their ability to play DVD media. Yuno, not the model by model list here, but a general list like "73% of Sony players will play DVD-R media of any sort" etc...

If the DVD player shares equal responsibily in this matter, why has no one taken time to list the bad manufacturers?

DVD media is only part of the equation.

Regards,

Savant

[BJ_M]

keep in mind also that he (besides using only one burning program on drv-r) only used one burner for dvd-r ---- the pioneer A03 , whch is known to be slightly less, compatability wise, than the newer A04/104 .. factors such as above, when changed, can cause most likely a change in the results.

[Savant]

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but my understanding (from talking with an engineer I know) is that the A04 is not significantly different than the A03. The biggest change was the firmware. (which I hear is causing loads of problems for some people)

Most of the problems seem to be with people trying to pirate movies and games though, I haven't heard many complaints or praise in the form of greatly enhanced recording ability in this new version.

Regards,

Savant

[BJ_M]

we have detected more errors w/ the a03 than with the a04 in testing ... though the differance was small .. some other diff. can be seen here http://www.dvdwriters.co.uk/reviews/pioneer/dvr104p1.htm and in a google search ..

a importaint point is that the 104 OEM model doesnt appear to be bios upgradable, while the A04 is ...

[PhilipL]

Withdrawn