DVD media quality & burn speed questions (TY, TDK, Prodi

[Ronaldus]

Steve2713 and Joeg04, thanks for your input on the burning speed issues. I didn't realize the speed to choose was so dependent on drive, firmware, and media. I figured there would be a more general rule that either slower was always good, bad, or didn't matter.

Given that I do not yet have a PI/PO capable drive so I cannot do any meaningful Kprobe error scans, based on your experience what would be your advice to me for choosing burn speeds on a Pioneer A06 or A07? That is, should I always burn at the media's maximum rated speed (that the burner will support), half of the media's maximum rated speed, or stick with 2x (2.4x) for lack of any better info at the moment?

I know it's just a guess, but your guess is better than mine. All I know is I've never had a burn fail at any speed, but I have one old player that had skipping problems near the end of media burned faster than 2x (I rarely use that player now so it's no longer important to burn at 2x just for it), and I have a Pioneer A06 and A07 with original firmware (I never had a reason to upgrade). After every burn I copy the files back to the hard drive and do a Windiff compare. That only proves there are no uncorrectable errors - which apparently is easy to accomplish.

Also, DVD Info Pro's surface scans pass every time I've tried on any media burned at any speed, so whatever the burn speed it doesn't produce enough uncorrectable errors because DVD Info Pro only reports the surface scan after error correction has been applied.

It sounds like I won't know for sure about the Pioneer A06 and A07 until I get a PI/PO Lite-On drive (or NEC 3520 if it in fact does the same thing).

[steve2713]

I don't know why you continue to question whether the NEC does PI/PO testing or not - I already told you it DOES....... If you buy a new drive and want PI/PO testing, buy a NEC or a Benq. Don't buy a Liteon, they are only average burners. Buy a NEC 3520 or Benq 1620, they are both great burners.

You say you have a Pioneer A06 and A07 and claim to have no reason to upgrade - firmware upgrades are called 'upgrades' for a reason, they intend to improve the drives. If you have skipping discs if burned faster than 2x, upgrading the FW may resolve that problem.

As to suggesting what speed to burn at, again that varies by burner/fw/media used. I'd so most, if not all, decent media should burn fine at it's rated speed. But again, it will depend on the burner/fw.

[joeg04]

Pioneer A06 and A07 are very good burners. The best results normally can be achieved with new firmware (currently A06: FW 1.08, A07: FW 1.21).

Compatibility list burner/firmware/speed/media:
http://wwwbsc.pioneer.co.jp/product-e/ibs/device_e/dev00003r_e.html#r01

Firmware change history:
http://wwwbsc.pioneer.co.jp/product-e/ibs/device_e/dev00002r_e.html

I would expect good results using A07 (FW 1.21), 8xDVD-R media (non-printable), 8x burning speed.

Good 8xDVD-R media with A07 (FW 1.21) are for example:
Maxell (MXL RG03),
Traxdata (RITEKG05),
Fuji (TYG02),
TDK (TTG02),
Ricoh (CMC MAG.AE1).

[Ronaldus]

Steve2713, regarding the NEC 3520, I guess it's that I don't understand how or what software is involved to do the PI/PO scanning. I think you mentioned DVD Info Pro (whose surface scan I have tried and consider relatively useless) and Nero CD/DVD Speed. I'll have to research them, find out the costs, if upgrades are needed, etc. so I can do PI/PO scans. So I was not trying to question if the drive did it, but how it did it.

Joeg04, I'll check into those links. I've been to the Pioneer firmware site in the past, but since I never had any problems with burning I didn't feel like I needed to upgrade. With new firmware, we are again talking about improvements in quality that I cannot see or prove exist until I get a drive capable of PI/PO scans. The improvements may be significant and I may someday wish I had upgraded firmware long ago, or the improvements may be trivial and I'll wonder why I bothered. I'm always afraid to flash the firmware because if it messes up then I'm out of luck.

Also, my A07 (which is still under warranty) cannot finalize +R media, but it should be able to with the firmware it came with (1.09) based on advertising. While upgrading the firmware may fix that problem, if it's not the firmware and I upgrade the firmware then Pioneer will void the warranty. I've got to search to see if others have had this issue. My A06 has 1.07 and it burns +R fine.

It sounds like your opinion is that burning the media at its maximum rated speed with the latest firmware using the media listed is preferable to burning at 2x (or 2.4x) with older firmware. I hope when I get the drive I need to do the scans that I don't find out I have high PI/PO errors because I burned at 2x instead of 4x or 8x. Since there is no simple or definitive answer to the burning speed issue, the need for me to be able to do my own PI/PO scans is even greater.

Thanks for the help.

[steve2713]

I've already told you that Nero CD/DVD Speed and DVDInfo do the testing, you don't need to BUY anything...... The NEC 3520 is capable of PI/PO testing........................................... ...... I don't know what you need to 'research', what 'costs you need to find'.

It works like this: you buy a NEC 3520, you update to the latest FW, you run a PI/PO scan on a disc. Not sure why I need to explain this.

This is what a PI/PO scan with Nero CD/DVD Speed looks like, tested with my Benq 822 drive - the NEC 3520 would work just the same (CMC R01 burned at 8x on NEC 2500):

[Ronaldus]

Steve2713, you obviously have lots of background knowledge on NEC drives, so it may be simple for you to get from point A to point D, but I like to know the points in between. I just spent over 3 hours of reading here and on CD Freaks about the NEC 3520 and PI/PO error scans, and I feel like I barely scratched the surface looking for various needles in haystacks. I think I read every thread on videohelp with the word "3520" in it, and I've got to give my tired eyes a break for tonight.

At first, I found several posts saying the NEC 3520 did not support PI/PO error scans. Then after more reading I found that it was newly supported in a recent firmware update (by Liggy & Dee at CD Freaks), and that Nero CD-DVD Speed required version 3.75 or later or a more recent DVD Info Pro, so I would have to upgrade to a newer version of DVD Info Pro. I have never used Nero CD-DVD Speed (which apparently is distributed as 2 separate programs, one for CD and one for DVD), but it appears to be freeware so that is good news. I was amazed nowhere on cdspeed2000 (that I could find) was it stated that these utilities are freeware.

I read a lot of disagreement between you, Lord Smurf, and others in various threads starting in 2005 whether the NEC 3520 and BenQ 1620 drives were as good as a Pioneer A09. In the end, I didn't come away with a clear winner. It sounds like none of them are bad drives, and the 3520 is getting firmware upgrades which should bring its burn quality close to the level of the 3500 which many people say is excellent. (Dee at CD Freaks called the 3520 a crappy reader, and several people said the 3520 is still inferior to the 3500.)

I found a large FAQ about PI/PO and error scanning on CD Freaks, so I need to read and educate myself on that. Somewhere it was called PIE, so I may be using the terms PI/PO incorrectly.

I started a new thread on the subject of the NEC 3520 and error scans at:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1301106#1301106

I appreciate the help.

[steve2713]

PIE=PI, PIF=PO. You obviously are doing alot to research all of this, but you are making it sound alot harder than it is. From the time you had a NEC 3520 installed in your computer to the time you'd be doing a PI/PO test would take about 5 minutes. Download the FW. Upgrade the FW, takes 30 seconds and a reboot. Download Nero CD-DVD Speed (1 program, not 2). Install, 10 seconds. Put disc in drive and click 'disc quality test'.

[Hawseman]

I think your research will help you....keep it up.

Don't limit yourself to NEC. Look at other drives that have the basic features that you desire. Steve2713 made the reference to NEC & BenQ. Both are good options for burning/scanning. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. I would add Plextor in the mix (although price can be a big negative).

After comparing the 3 drives, you may still decide on the NEC....but at least you won't be kicking yourself later because you didn't purchase one of the others.

Currently, I have 5 burners (NEC 2500, 3500, Pio A06, BenQ 1620 & a Liteon). The NEC's and Pioneer have become competing drives because they have very similar burning characteristics. The BenQ on the other hand, is an excellent compliment to these other drives. It handles +R media better and is a field proven quality scanner.

Don't limit yourself. I'm not saying that the NEC is a bad choice, it's just not the ONLY choice.

[joeg04]

as well as the one where somebody insists paper labels are strong enough to bend media. The "paper bending plastic" is just a stupid theory as far as I'm concerned. The flimsy paper is going to shred long before it warps a double-thick plastic platter.

In the German computer magazine C't (issue 9/04 from 19-Apr-2004) they described a test regarding DVD labels.
They tested with the following labels (with and without using a centering tool):
- Avery/Zweckform L6015 (paper, 161 g/m²),
- Avery/Zweckform C6074 (paper, 198 g/m²),
- Herma 8900 (paper, 125 g/m²),
- Herma 8994 (silver foil, 150 g/m²),
- Sigel LP749 (paper, 130 g/m²),
- Sigel IP630 (paper, 180 g/m²).

The measurements were done 1 week after applying the labels and storing in good conditions.

They measured the warping of Taiyo Yuden DVD+Rs, using the test equipment "BR1 Advanced" from www.audiodev.com . The measured warping increased by about 1° with all paper labels and only by about 0.34° with the Herma silver foil.

They also measured radia track deviation. It increased with all 6 labels by about 7 nm, but stayed under 16 nm, the maximum value allowed by DVD specification.

Error rates were scanned and only with the Herma silver foil there were good results (within specification). All the paper labels increased error rates above values allowed by DVD specification.

My conclusion from this test: Paper labels warp DVDs.

[johns0]

PI/PIF/PO/etc scans are not all that important. It can answer (sometimes) "why" a disc is bad, but aside from the techno-geeks in certain forums online, nobody cares. There are plenty of ways to learn "if" a disc is bad (Nero CD-DVD Speed), and that's the most important one, software-wise. Don't get sucked into that hole, it's really unneeded.

I lost faith in pi/pif testing when the dvd-r i was testing showed an average of 5 pi and .01 pif and these would skip like crazy yet when i burned at 2x instead of 4x and got pi of 150 average and pif of .1 and no skips at all.

[joeg04]

I think, error rate scanning makes sense to make sure, that your DVD-R complies to DVD spec regarding error rates. And to make sure that you are far enough away from the limits, so that you are robust against additional scratches and other aging effects. Then video playback problems in the future with many different DVD players and also copy problems in the future are less likely.

But practical testing with a few DVD players should also be done, because errors can also be caused by other properties of the disk to that other players may react more sensitive, by non-compliant MPEG streams, by a dirty lense in the player, by old players that were only designed to playback disks with reflectivity of DVD-ROM... Your standalone player may react differently to a certain disk than your PC DVD drive.

Some specification limits for DVD media are:
- PI sum 8 < 280,
- DC jitter should be < 9.5% (no spec limit),
- radial track deviation (radial 2) < 16 nm,
- radial warping < 0.8°,
- dynamic unbalance < 10 g mm.

I think it is also important to test, if there are no non-correctable errors, so that lossless 1:1 copies can be done. A simple test if that is possible would be for example, to copy the VIDEO_TS folder back to HDD. Only testing video playback is not enough.