TSSTcorp CDDVD SH-S202J SB03 won't read disc

[dbminter]

Oh, you can ALWAYS go wrong with a Sony product.    I eventually got my PS3 to play Blu-Ray movies after Sony replaced my defective model out of the box.  But, someone else on here has a PS3 and it NEVER has played a Blu-Ray movie!  Plays Blu-Ray PS3 games, but not movies. 

 

When my PS3 plays out, I'll just have to try whatever Blu-Ray player I can find at Wal-Mart.  Definitely WON'T try a Playstation.  The PS3 and the PS3 remote experiences I had finally sealed the doom of Sony with me.

[dbminter]

Saw this one coming from a mile away!  

 

Decided to try a Pioneer BDR-211UBK to see if they fixed the 209's problems like how LG fixed the WH16NS40 with the WH16NS60.  However, since both the 211 and 209 share the same firmware revision, I knew it would still be screwed up.  And it is! 

 

The Ritek/Ricoh 8x DVD+RW problem persisted over, so I know the other issue will also carry over between the two drives.  When the Pioneers format brand new Ricoh/Ritek 8x DVD+RW discs, they will ALWAYS fail Verify with an L-EC Uncorrectable Error at some random point!    Writes will ALWAYS fail Verify on the 1.52 firmware (And the previous 1.51 firmware.) until the disc is written in another drive.  After that happens, the discs ARE usable on 1.52 in the Pioneers.  Pioneer always borks the firmware of their drives.  1.50 was the last firmware that worked right.

 

The other issue is with Ricoh/Ritek Memorex 2x BD-RE.  What happens there is Verify completes but for 90% of the Verify, it is capped at only 2x Verify speed!   

 

I keep TELLING Pioneer, but they don't give a damn.  They only care about .  So, with the current Pioneer models, you get some faster write rates, but you need 2 drives!    One drive to initially write Ricoh/Ritek 8x DVD+RW and the Pioneer to write 16x BD-R at 16x.  And the 2nd drive for Verifying Ricoh/Ritek Memorex BD-RE with.

[dr_ml422]

I guess you like using those Ricoh Ritek discs, and they must be pretty good if you're using them. on another front and I think you might be interested and like this as well, Microsoft is looking to end passwords for the PC etc.... accounts! They're rolling out a new pre-build to the fast-track Insiders as I speak ,and so if anything it depends how fast they want to bring it out to the public. I think they're talking about maybe 2020 or 2022, but I think it might be closer than that. it'll be either a biometric which would probably be facial recognition or fingerprint, or the pin which they say even though it seems simple is actually not recorded on their servers, or anywhere else like passwords are. I don't know too much about that security stuff, and so I would have to look into that, but I never did like a pin other than for my banking if you know what I mean.

Edited July 12, 2019 by dr_ml422
Misspell.

[dbminter]

I, too, read about that.  You can actually configure Windows as of now to not require a sign in log on.  It's best enabled by certain software like Windows 10 Manager.

 

Even Microsoft admitted passwords won't be totally eliminated and I don't see how they can be.

 

As for servers storing your passwords, well, that would only matter if you sign in with a Microsoft account, wouldn't it?  Which I don't use.

 

I prefer passwords over PIN's.  Unless you use really long PIN's, they're probably easier to crack than passwords.

 

I don't trust facial recognition or fingerprint scans.  Your face changes as you age.  And what if you have some kind of accident like a scar that changes your fingerprint?  Plus, it seems to me easier to get a copy of someone's fingerprint by lifting it off of a glass versus being impeded by a long string of characters only the user knows.

 

Bottom line: I don't WANT passwords to go away.  I can easily remember my own.  And they're not as insecure as the tech companies want you to believe.  Accounts are hacked not because you have poor passwords but because tech companies half ass on the expense to secure THEIR systems.  Hacks occur in big bundles from a tech company's server.  NOT from hacking people's accounts.  If companies invested in proper security, this wouldn't happen as often as it does.  And companies skimp on the security because they're greedy. 

[dr_ml422]

What the security so-called expert was talking about is that the way a password is stored as opposed to a pin is different and requires some kind of server related process to get it done. I didn't read too much into what the guy was talking about and I think I tried a pin one time and for some reason I like the password better myself. Too many of them though and so I have Google do all the honors with that. I have way too many things that need passwords and just about every damn place or site that you go into is going to ask you for one.

Security is the biggest expense that almost every company has to deal with these days. Facebook as big as they are and as much money as he make and as much of a billionaire that he is pays a nod of money for the security on that site.

[dbminter]

I let Firefox store my sign ins and passwords locally.  And, as a backup, I've got a word processor file that has all this information that itself is password protected.  While not 100% secure, I've been doing it this way for years and haven't been hacked.  In fact, I've used the same password, sometimes verbatim sometimes with variations, for most of my sites and even my own PC since 1992.  I've never been hacked.  And I won't be hacked.  If my information is dumped, it will be the fault of some web site that didn't properly pay for its own decent security.

[dbminter]

Interesting.  Ordered some 16x BD-R's from Amazon.com in a 25 cake stack.  The site description says 16x.  The images show 16x.  Received 6x!    While 6x will write at 12x, at least, I don't know if they're rated for 16x or not.

[dr_ml422]

Hmmm! Is it a backed by Amazon order? What brand Ricoh? Sometimes the descriptors can be misleading. Hope somewhere it says at least writes up to 16x. Doubt you'll send them back, though Amazon will rectify any mishaps.

Yes, I agree that it's usually the site's fault when a password is hacked. I let FF and Chrome and Edge save them as well as having a backup app..

I took advantage of Prime Day and purchased a Batman New Villain tshirt and another curious treat. 

[dbminter]

They're not Ricoh.  They're Verbatim branded BD-R.  It is an Amazon.com order, so it's covered by them.  But, I'd just send them back and end up getting MORE 6x media.  Amazon.com is probably trying to clear out stock of old 6x media.  And these 6x media MIGHT write at 16x in my Pioneer BDR-211.  They should write at 12x at least.  That was the previous behavior with 6x Verbatim BD-R in the BDR-2209 and the LG WH16NS60.

 

So, it probably would be a waste of my time to send them back.  Best to just keep them and save me the trouble since I can use them.

[dr_ml422]

Oh ok. I'm trying to choose some movie or tv series to purchase, so I can rip them full disc and have VidCoder encode them to mkv hevc 1080p AC3 5.1 or 7.1. I'm also interested in how they encode Blu-ray to 1,2, or less GB? How is a 25GB-50GB compressed to less than 2 or 3 GB? Is the movie less than the whole? There's no way compressing anything from that many GBs is going to look great. Thanks. 

[dbminter]

As with DVD, it all depends on the codec/compression method you use.  Blu-Ray, like DVD before it, is really large because of the age of its codec.  Over time, better codecs came along that allowed for better compression.  Plus, you don't know how long the resulting container file took to process.  You may get a 1 GB container file from a 25 GB Blu-Ray movie, but how long did it take for the maker of that container file to compress it?  Could have been hours.

[dbminter]

I tested one of these 6x BD-R to see what I'd get.  I didn't have a large sample to work with, but here's what I got:

I 19:15:55 Source File Size: 9,565,306,880 bytes

I 19:15:55 Destination Device: [0:0:0] PIONEER BD-RW   BDR-211M 1.52 (R:) (USB 3.0)
I 19:15:55 Destination Media Type: BD-R (HTL) (Disc ID: VERBAT-IMe-000)
I 19:15:55 Destination Media Supported Write Speeds: 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x, 10x, 12x, 16x

I 19:15:55 Write Speed Successfully Set! - Effective: 71,920 KB/s (16x)

I 19:20:56 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:05:00
I 19:20:56 Average Write Rate: 36,346 KiB/s (8.3x) - Maximum Write Rate: 48,896 KiB/s (11.1x)

 

So, I got a supported maximum of 16 and an effective write rate set of 16, too.  Whether I'd actually get 16 is up for debate as I didn't even get 12, but I almost got 12 before the end of data.  Maybe these will write at 16x.  I won't know until I get a higher capacity image file to burn these to.  Like 20 GB or closer to 25 to know for sure.

[dr_ml422]

That's great! And the Blu-ray blanks only come in - RE and no +RE correct? I'm pretty familiar with all the compression apps.. They're either using VidCoder or Handbrake, which VidCoder is based on. I think they're using final size as output and not CQ. Constant Quality will not ime give you a 1GB file from 25GB etc... Maybe. I just don't see how.

[dbminter]

Yes, there's no + and - differentiation with BD.  They sussed that out with the previous format war causing too much fragmentation.  So, the past format war, which BD won, was just between two competing technologies.  Not just different flavors of the same thing.

 

Well, Handbrake does offer different sizes based on the quality you choose.  And the quality is determined by which speed you choose.

 

I've never actually converted BD material to containers except for a BD whose contents were entirely SD material previously released on DVD.  The contents were SD and, since they were recorded on video tape in the early 1970's, could never be upscaled to BD quality.  They'd be standard definition just in BD format.  So, the resulting container files I got were on par with DVD conversion size.  All around 750 MB.

 

I did do a BD conversion of a real quality BD with ConvertXToDVD.  It was a 50 GB disc and the resulting movie input was too large for DVD.  However, that was with all the extra language audio tracks, which were like 12 total!    Once I eliminated everything except the English main feature audio track and English commentary track, the 50 GB movie was compressible down to DVD-9 size.  Just barely.

[dbminter]

Looks like on this Pioneer 211, 6x media may very well get 16x.  I had a little larger data set this time and got this:

I 19:46:59 Destination Device: [0:0:0] PIONEER BD-RW   BDR-211M 1.52 (R:) (USB 3.0)
I 19:46:59 Destination Media Type: BD-R (HTL) (Disc ID: VERBAT-IMe-000)
I 19:46:59 Destination Media Supported Write Speeds: 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x, 10x, 12x, 16x
I 19:46:59 Destination Media Sectors: 12,219,392

I 19:46:59 Write Speed Successfully Set! - Effective: 71,920 KB/s (16x)

I 19:52:44 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:05:44
I 19:52:44 Average Write Rate: 40,212 KiB/s (9.2x) - Maximum Write Rate: 53,756 KiB/s (12.2x)

 

While it is common to get 0.1x higher than the maximum rated speed on Pioneer drives, getting 0.2x isn't.  So, if I had a larger image to burn, I'm more and more confident I could get 16x.

 

And this wasn't even on one of the branded 6x BD-R I just got.  This was on an older inkjet printable 6x Verbatim BD-R.

[dr_ml422]

Reminding me of getting 24× with 16× DVD+R Verbatim on my LG Multiwrite. No one looks into these kind of things. So it's great insight on your behalf. Keep it up! See what can be done with certain drives and specific media.

[dbminter]

I'm not entirely sure how this works, actually.  I would think a media rated at Zx maximum would only get Zx at the most.  Yet, newer drives are, more and more, getting faster speeds on older media.  And it only seems to be for WORM (Write Once, Read Many) media.  Rewritable media are always stuck at their maximum rating for maximum burning speed.  With some 0.1x variations.  For instance, some drives get 8.1x maximum write rates on Ricoh/Ritek 8x DVD+RW.  Never quite figured that one out either. 

[dbminter]

Had a larger image set this time, closer to 22 GB, and got closer to 16x on 6x BD-R in the Pioneer 211.

 

I 18:18:09 Source File Sectors: 10,689,984 (MODE1/2048)
I 18:18:09 Source File Size: 21,893,087,232 bytes

I 18:18:09 Destination Device: [0:0:0] PIONEER BD-RW   BDR-211M 1.52 (R:) (USB 3.0)
I 18:18:09 Destination Media Type: BD-R (HTL) (Disc ID: VERBAT-IMe-000)
I 18:18:09 Destination Media Supported Write Speeds: 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x, 10x, 12x, 16x
I 18:18:09 Destination Media Sectors: 12,219,392

I 18:18:09 Write Speed Successfully Set! - Effective: 71,920 KB/s (16x)

I 18:27:49 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:09:39
I 18:27:49 Average Write Rate: 40,187 KiB/s (9.2x) - Maximum Write Rate: 64,615 KiB/s (14.7x)

[dr_ml422]

You're just a video, burning, connoisseur just like me! It's like a challenge we can't let go. Up it to 40GB and you should be good.

[dbminter]

If I upped it to 40 GB, I couldn't burn it to these BD-R SL.  And if used BD-R DL, I doubt they would get to 16x max write rates.

 

And for the sake of disclosure, I've hardly ever burned a BD Video disc.  99% of all of my BD burns were data that were unrelated to BD Video.

[dr_ml422]

Oh yes my bad. I realized the 25GB- limit just a little while ago. Hmmm just data. That's even better than film. You should definitely be reaching optimal levels then.

[dbminter]

Well, actually, I make a differentiation between BD Video and just data, but actually, it's all data.  BD Video just has some specific file structure designations.  CD Audio is the only optical format that is not purely data.  It's a specific optical format.  For instance, if you put data on a mixed mode CD, you'd have 1 track with audio tracks and 1 with data files on it.  Windows can natively read the data track, but it requires specific software like Windows Media Player to read the audio track tracks.

 

And there is a differentiation with encrypted BD Video.  The drive/operating system "scramble" the contents so you need some kind of translating layer, which slows down the reading process.

 

I tend to use BD-R primarily as a "data" media to do file and system backups on.  While usually these backups will fit on a DVD/DVD+R DL, I still use BD-R because they write faster and as long as I use High To Low BD, will last much longer as they don't have organic dyes which can fade.  They use fused metal oxide layers.

[dr_ml422]

Cool! What's going on on the vso front if you have any additional info on that? I'm going to hit the applications now and see if it comes up with any updates. I have been using other stuff then vso recently. I know I bought both of them, and they're both good especially convert x to DVD but the convert to video jury is still out. Thanks.

[dbminter]

I only really follow the updates on the ConvertXToDVD front.  Although I think there was a recent beta for VSODownloader.  However, there hasn't been a new ConvertXToDVD beta since I last reported one.  It was supposed to be going gold if no new bugs were reported, but, of course, one was.  Something to do with incorrect colors for subtitles.

[dbminter]

So, here's what I achieved with a nearly full BD-R image to these 6x BD-R:

I 18:58:18 Source File Size: 24,026,349,568 bytes

I 18:58:18 Destination Device: [0:0:0] PIONEER BD-RW   BDR-211M 1.52 (R:) (USB 3.0)
I 18:58:18 Destination Media Type: BD-R (HTL) (Disc ID: VERBAT-IMe-000)
I 18:58:18 Destination Media Supported Write Speeds: 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x, 10x, 12x, 16x
I 18:58:18 Destination Media Sectors: 12,219,392

I 18:58:18 Write Speed Successfully Set! - Effective: 71,920 KB/s (16x)

I 19:07:29 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:09:11
I 19:07:29 Average Write Rate: 45,737 KiB/s (10.4x) - Maximum Write Rate: 63,936 KiB/s (14.6x)

 

So, not quite 16x, but pretty close.  And maybe a full 25 GB might get me 16x, but I doubt it.  Still, I won't complain with these results.