VideoHelp Forum




Closed Thread
Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. Preservationist davideck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    Just wondering if anyone has any experience with this;

    For a given media type/speed, does one writer burn better than the other? Better can mean whatever you want, but might also imply that the DVD will last longer or be more compatible in more machines, etc.

    ????

  2. Member Epicurus8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ocean West, USA (ATSC)
    Search Comp PM
    Someone will now doubt post a link or two regarding this. My comments are general comments.

    Certain media have better compatibility. Slower burn speeds generally result in better compatibility. Certain writers are known to perform better, resulting in better compatibility.

    As far as lasting longer, nothing lasts forever (especially if the dog gets hold of it). Your best bet is to always use quality media, and handle/store it carefully.

  3. Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inner Circle of Thought
    Search Comp PM
    As long as the disc burns, who cares?

  4. If you go by the quality of the scans, an indication of the burn errors, there is no question that the 108 burns better than the 105, as well as the 107.
    Still a few bugs in the system...

  5. Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inner Circle of Thought
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    If you go by the quality of the scans, an indication of the burn errors, there is no question that the 108 burns better than the 105, as well as the 107.
    That is garbage

    I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

    The only difference would be the time factor.

  6. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    My 105 is fine.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  7. Член BJ_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    my 105's are the best
    "Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

  8. No (not with RITEK 1x/2x DVD-R or Taiyo Yuden 4x DVD-R). My friend has a Pioneer 105 & I envy his burn quality. I have read that Pioneer 103/105/107 produce the highest quality burns (using DVD-R media). I wish my scans looked this good (they're almost as good). This TYG02 was burned on his Pioneer 105.
    If God had intended us not to masturbate he would've made our arms shorter.
    George Carlin

  9. I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. I never said you should dump your 105 for a 108. If you are happy with what you have keep it. And I hate to point it out, but the scan above is not fantastic; good but hardly great. Again, if you are happy, keep it. Hardly garbage.
    Still a few bugs in the system...

  10. Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inner Circle of Thought
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. If you are happy with what you have keep it. Hardly garbage.
    Even that is debateable.

  11. Originally Posted by bazooka
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. If you are happy with what you have keep it. Hardly garbage.
    Even that is debateable.
    I agree... I'd like to see a disc burned with a 108 that has fewer errors than the one I posted.
    If God had intended us not to masturbate he would've made our arms shorter.
    George Carlin

  12. Originally Posted by bazooka
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. If you are happy with what you have keep it. Hardly garbage.
    Even that is debateable.
    It is not worth debating as clearly you think my comments here are garbage. Any evidence I would provide would be countered by you with some evidence to support you position. The poster did not ask you to debate the benefits of buying a new drive over an older one. He just asked if the 108 burned better than the 105. If you are not open to the fact you might be wrong there is no point. It is always easier to be open to information when it is not reflective on your own self worth. You might notice that I have neither drive.

    My opinions are based on many scans I have seen on sites showing media burned on both drives. The scans could be forged, they might not be representitive of all the drives in existence, they could be skewed in favor of one bias or another. But based on all I have seen the 108 burns with fewer errors. Clearly you have seen something else.
    Still a few bugs in the system...

  13. Originally Posted by chas0039
    I hate to point it out, but the scan above is not fantastic; good but hardly great.
    OK, show us a great scan from a 108.

    This is a scan of a RITEKG04 burned by a Pioneer 105.
    If God had intended us not to masturbate he would've made our arms shorter.
    George Carlin

  14. Member Epicurus8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ocean West, USA (ATSC)
    Search Comp PM
    Gee, I predicted a few posts. But Nothing like this! What say we take it outside boys.

    PS. I love my 105, but just got back from BB and will be testing out my new 109. I might have some info to share in a few days.

  15. Originally Posted by bazooka
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    If you go by the quality of the scans, an indication of the burn errors, there is no question that the 108 burns better than the 105, as well as the 107.
    That is garbage

    I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

    The only difference would be the time factor.
    Read above. As to your scan, great PIF errors, not so great PI errors.

    I agree, time to be over this. I have no investment in the outcome and the interested parties have already made their decision. Anyhow, it is possible I am wrong if you look at PIF errors.
    Still a few bugs in the system...

  16. Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inner Circle of Thought
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    You might notice that I have neither drive.
    Then why do you comment when you have no first hand knowledge?

  17. Originally Posted by bazooka
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    You might notice that I have neither drive.
    Then why do you comment when you have no first hand knowledge?
    You need to read my posts.
    Still a few bugs in the system...

  18. Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inner Circle of Thought
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    Originally Posted by bazooka
    Originally Posted by chas0039
    You might notice that I have neither drive.
    Then why do you comment when you have no first hand knowledge?
    You need to read my posts.
    I did and looking at someone elses test is irrellevant given the fact you do not have either drive and you do not have that computer.

    You have no direct knowledge at all.

  19. Yup you are absolutely right I know nothing at all. Pay no attention to me. EOM
    Still a few bugs in the system...

  20. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by bazooka
    As long as the disc burns, who cares?
    I care because I've had high quailty discs burn successfully that wouldn't play properly for long. When I did the scans of my Maxell 4x discs at 4x, 8x and 12x, anything over 4x showed high errors despite reporting successful burns in Nero and playing well. A couple months later the 8x discs didn't play properly, never tried the 12x yet.

    "...That is garbage

    I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

    The only difference would be the time factor. ..."


    Go to thefirmwarepage and review scans, you'll find many excellent scans from the 108 as well; and I have seen far better scans than those posted too. Bazooka, first you make an absurd post then follow it with an audicious comment like that, I find that very ironic. I don't necessarily agree with chas0039's comment on the 105 but he seems to have given some reasonable argument while I can't see the sense in yours.
    High PI errors may affect the lifespan of a disk even with low PIF's afaik, and I know first hand that high PIF's (I had a couple peaks in 30's) may play fine while a disk is new but can fail in the near future. And btw looking at someone else's scans is pertinent, or the ones posted here are moot... :P

    Mike

  21. Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inner Circle of Thought
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by mikepos
    Originally Posted by bazooka
    As long as the disc burns, who cares?
    I care because I've had high quailty discs burn successfully that wouldn't play properly for long. When I did the scans of my Maxell 4x discs at 4x, 8x and 12x, anything over 4x showed high errors despite reporting successful burns in Nero and playing well. A couple months later the 8x discs didn't play properly, never tried the 12x yet.

    "...That is garbage

    I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

    The only difference would be the time factor. ..."


    Go to thefirmwarepage and review scans, you'll find many excellent scans from the 108 as well; and I have seen far better scans than those posted too. Bazooka, first you make an absurd post then follow it with an audicious comment like that, I find that very ironic. I don't necessarily agree with chas0039's comment on the 105 but at least he provided a bit of useful and correct information unlike you. Posts like yours do nothing to help a forum (it's arguable that the same can be said of htis post of mine too though :P )
    High PI errors may affect the lifespan of a disk even with low PIF's afaik, and I know first hand that high PIF's (I had a couple peaks in 30's) may play fine while a disk is new but can fail in the near future. And btw looking at someone else's scans is pertinent. But I've owned 2 pioneer burners anyway, which seems to be important in your logic.

    Mike
    It was not absurd. You had crappy discs. I have hundreds of dvd's that were burned on my 105 that I used to have and guess what. They are still just as playable.

    My point is you cannot comment on what you have never had. I could say a corvette is junk, but unless I own one, then I am just flapping my lip. That was what chas0039 was doing.

    The only difference between the 105 and others is the ability to burn both + and - and speed. The 105 was a 4x burner that would only burn dash discs.

    I repeat, as long as it burns, it doesn't matter.

  22. I repeat, as long as it burns, it doesn't matter.

  23. Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inner Circle of Thought
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by steve2713
    I repeat, as long as it burns, it doesn't matter.
    It doesn't

    You all are looking at it the wrong way. Look at the burner as if it were a car.

    You cannot say one car is better than the other when they both drive you to the same location.

    What matters is the media or in the car's case, it is gas.

  24. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    What a useful topic.

    I have something to add too....

    Argue via e-mail, not the forum.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS




Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!