Burning slower is burning better

[Pain_Man]

I've just recently started scanning my disks. I still not convinced of the actual worth of the procedure. I have a number of disks with atrocious scans that play perfectly well in my set-top and in my PC burners. So far the relationship between a quality scan and quality "video experience", to me, seems tenuous at best.

 

Nay-the-less, I was getting some not so good readings from TYG03s burnt set at 16x (of course I've never seen it hit 16 and it rarely stays above 13x for long). Grain told me he'd been experiencing the same thing but that slowing them down had a beneficial effect on the scans. So far this is turning out to be true. To reiterate, watching these discs on my HDTV (a CRT not a LCD or reflector) shows no difference. But the scans are the scans.

 

In the interests of full disclosure I should add that they were NOT burned on the same burners but were burned in the same PC.

 

Take a look at this one burnt at 16x max:

 

 

And this one burnt with the speed set to 12x:

 

 

Obviously, slowing down increases quality as far as the DIP scanner is concerned. By almost 14% overall.

 

And C1 errors are a whopping 1400% lower with the slower speed than with the higher even though the higher speed burn was done on the excellent Plextor PX-716A.

Edited April 30, 2006 by Pain_Man

[lfcrule1972]

I wouldn't recommend 16x burning at the moment, like Grain I see much better scans on the TYG03's when burnt at 8x.....

 

As I mentioned to you before, the standalone players can cope with a lot of bad burns and that I think confuses the importance of these scans. The way I look at it is to aim for the highest quality scan possible at the start, that way over time the disc will hopefully remain playable for longer. If I start at 99% scan quality my thinking is that it should remain playable for longer than a disc that starts at 86% quality....

[chewy]

Assuming the data on the archival dvd's is important, playability is not my prime concern. Will it rip back to the hard drive in most readers at full speed? Or in my case, copy on the fly at 8x? This standard is very practical and scanning is a valuable tool. A hypothetical example, idiot brother in law or step son comes for extended visit wanting to access your database.

[Pain_Man]

I wouldn't recommend 16x burning at the moment, like Grain I see much better scans on the TYG03's when burnt at 8x.....

 

As I mentioned to you before, the standalone players can cope with a lot of bad burns and that I think confuses the importance of these scans. The way I look at it is to aim for the highest quality scan possible at the start, that way over time the disc will hopefully remain playable for longer. If I start at 99% scan quality my thinking is that it should remain playable for longer than a disc that starts at 86% quality....

 

 

 

You've got a lot more knowledge than I do so I don't want to seem as tho' I'm arguing with you. But so far even some three yr old CMCs with wretched scans are still playing fine.

 

However, your point will probably prove out over the longer term, five, ten, fifteen years (tho' I kind of doubt we'll still be using DVDs at the ten yr mark, let alone fifteen). In the immediate term, the question remains open--in my experience.

[Pain_Man]

Assuming the data on the archival dvd's is important, playability is not my prime concern. Will it rip back to the hard drive in most readers at full speed? Or in my case, copy on the fly at 8x? This standard is very practical and scanning is a valuable tool. A hypothetical example, idiot brother in law or step son comes for extended visit wanting to access your database.

 

 

My idiot brother-in-law's in jail. And I've banned him from the house. So I don't have to worry about that. Hopefully, the state of Nevada will keep him nice and behind bars for several years to come.

 

He's 40 yrs old and still getting arrested on coke charges (he simply can't fathom that it's illegal to tell an undercover cop where to buy dope!

 

Nay the less, your point's excellent Chewie. There are two perspectives here: the first is that of an entertainment device, the second that of a storage device. And I agree, as long as the data can be retrieved from a DVD and transfered to a format that can be played then the DVD's proved its worth.

[Pain_Man]

Besides the lower scan (burnt at 12x) looks pretty sweet, does it not?

[chewy]

Obviously, slowing down increases quality as far as the DIP scanner is concerned. By almost 13% overall.

 

I would say by 1000%

[Pain_Man]

Obviously, slowing down increases quality as far as the DIP scanner is concerned. By almost 13% overall.

 

I would say by 1000%

 

 

Mais bien sur!

[Movie Junkie]

I've always believed in buring slow. I burn my DVD5 discs at 4x and my DL's at 2.4. I know it takes a lot more time but it's not like I am standing around waiting for the burns to finsh. The bottom line is that I have had darn near 100% success rate in over 1200 burns.

[Pain_Man]

I've always believed in buring slow. I burn my DVD5 discs at 4x and my DL's at 2.4. I know it takes a lot more time but it's not like I am standing around waiting for the burns to finsh. The bottom line is that I have had darn near 100% success rate in over 1200 burns.

 

 

I've always believed in buring slow. Back in the day, so did I.

 

I burn my DVD5 discs at 4x and my DL's at 2.4.

 

You're a far more patient person than I am. I did, once, unintentionally burn a DL at 2.4x. The IBG graph of the burn was extremely smooth.

 

 

The bottom line is that I have had darn near 100% success rate in over 1200 burns. Most excellent.

 

I've probably burned 400+ DVDs and I too have had a very low rate of coasters, and some of them were due to my error. And I've usually burned at the highest rated speed. However, except for the first few months of burning--so to speak--I've always used high quality media, nearly all Taiyos or Verbatims. The results have been commensurate with their reputations. But since I'm not in a hurry, and the scans do bear it out, I've slowed my speeds. I no longer burn "5s" at 16x, but rather 12x (there being no gain in scan quality by going to 8x). With CDDA back ups, I'm experimenting with burning @16x instead of my burner's maxes of 40 & 48x. So far I haven't detected any difference in sound quality. Be interesting to see what the scans report (and it'll be nice when DIP supports CD scanning!).

 

On the other hand, as far as scans go, even on discs that have had atrocious scans, with one exception, I cannot see the difference in video quality on my high end HDTV.

Edited April 30, 2006 by Pain_Man

[Movie Junkie]

You're a far more patient person than I am.

It really doesn't have anything to do about being patient. While the disc is being written to I am either doing my paperwork on my other computer, watching TV, reading a newspaper or doing something else.

 

I've probably burned 400+ DVDs and I too have had a very low rate of coasters, and some of them were due to my error.

The same here.

 

I've always used high quality media, nearly all Taiyos or Verbatims. The results have been commensurate with their reputations.

The first 3 or 4 burns were on Maxells made by RiTek/RiData and I had nothing but problems with them. After that I switched to Verbatims.

[calweycn]

I've always believed in buring slow. I burn my DVD5 discs at 4x and my DL's at 2.4. I know it takes a lot more time but it's not like I am standing around waiting for the burns to finsh. The bottom line is that I have had darn near 100% success rate in over 1200 burns.

The newer 20-pack batches of Verbatim 2.4x DVD+R DL seem to burn better at

4x. The PI errors are much higher on the second layer if you burn at 2.4x - like

60 max, 45 average. They play OK, but make me nervous, nonetheless. I burn

mostly at 4x now, because that seems to give the best results on most DVDs. I

aim for 97-99 quality scores in CDspeed.

 

I only use Verbatim 16x 25-packs and Taiyo Yuden 8-16x (Sony MIJ 50-packs

with octagonal white spacer). I found that Verbatim 50- and 100-packs do not

have the same quality as 25-packs. PIEs are twice as much and PIFs are 6-13

times as much. In short, crappy media. BenQ's Qscan tests also SHOW that the

Verbatim 25-packs have lower errors than 50s and 100s.

 

I would never burn at over 8x. Playback in picky machines can be hit and miss

if you burn at 12-16x, even with good drives and media.

Edited September 29, 2006 by calweycn

[dbminter]

It's actually been the case for a long time. The slower you burn, the better. There are some cases where some speed jumps are tolerable. But, it seems that once you get beyond 4x, the next jump isn't as necessarily "stable" as the last.

[Grain]

I found that Verbatim 50- and 100-packs do not have the same quality as 25-packs. PIEs are twice as much and PIFs are 6-13

times as much. In short, crappy media. BenQ's Qscan tests also SHOW that the

Verbatim 25-packs have lower errors than 50s and 100s.

 

I'm skeptical of that. I have 25's, 50's & 100's(Verbatim) in my larder, and I can't scan a difference. I find it extremely hard to believe that a company producing 10's to 100's of thousands of discs a day (or more) is going to take the time to produce different quality discs and then not charge more for them and/or not label them as such.

[spinningwheel]

I agree Grain, I thought they were produced in 'batches' or "production runs" for quality control purposes and then are packaged for the differing markets. It would be of no value to the manufacturer to produce one type for single, five, ten, twenty-five, fifty and hundred disc cakes or wraps. The logistics would quickly become unmanageable with the labor costs skyrocketing out of control as the production lines were changed to meet separate demands.

[cornholio7]

The newer 20-pack batches of Verbatim 2.4x DVD+R DL seem to burn better at

4x.

i have tested these discs at all supported speeds on my pioneer, plextor and benq 1640 and have found the best scans are burnt at 6x on my set up