Discussion in 'CD/DVD/BD Blanks' started by Michael Lockwood, Feb 21, 2021.
Here is the Pio-209 2x speed for the no-name Verbatim MID
Ooops, sorry, was multi tasking or would have noticed...
Need to care of something here at home for the next hour or two, but let me try to start a quality scan in parallel, either of the LG burned disc or a Pioneer burn but preferably with LiteOn plugged directly into the PC's USB port and not the hub.
Doesn't matter. The LiteOn is now on SATA -> USB3 hub. Discs are burned via SATA in the case. The bitch is just the buggy software.
I give up for now (have to take care of some things that are now late), ODC 1.8 software is not scanning my discs properly. My numbers cannot possible be correct.
VSO Inspector gave 100% on both the surface test and the file test...
Well, I think burning at 2X (instead of 4x) may have made a H U G E difference, far more than the type of media used or even than the model of burner used perhaps...
I just burned an UHD 50GB BD-R DL (Verbatim 'Hard Coat') at 2X speed and the quality scan numbers so far (to the same specific point in the disc) are MUCH MUCH MUCH lower so far than the discs * burned at 4X (albeit early in the quality scan process, so let's see if that holds true, but to this point it is already much lower than the other discs were at the SAME point in the scan)!!!
Either that, or ODC 1.8 and my Lite-On drive are finally scanning properly!!!
* I just need to scan a 4X-burned Hard Coat again to be sure though. I have the LiteOn plugged directly into the laptop, but thought I did that yesterday too with my last scan and the numbers YESTERDAY were still bad.
Anyway, WOW. If this scan ends up as good as I think it will, I may burn everything at 2X, IF that could help with BD-R DL longevity.
My Philips and Verbatim discs (two types of Verbatim) burned at 6X and 4X all played fine in my home BD player (not including the HP batch); otherwise i would have considered the much slower 2X speed much earlier.
I was shocked yesterday how high my LDC and BIS numbers were (in a bad way);today's scan of the 2X burned discs are the exact opposite!!! Unbelievable turnaround...
Will wait for the entire scan to finish and share the results here (screenshots).
Can't wait to try the 4X Hard Coat to confirm the 2X speed made the HUGE difference.
Then I will burn some Verbatim JP and Philips discs at 2X as well and run the quality scans.
Well -most drives only allow 4x at minimum which is BS when you look at the scan results. Luckily the Pios still allow 2x.
Burn speed - forgot to mention that. But that's essential. Pio 2x burns are nearly perfect. No chance with LG / ASUS and Liteon drives. Minimum burn speed is 4x and then these burns are compromized.
Thanks. Yes, 4x minimum is odd. Luckily indeed!
If the quality scan stays the way it is going (disc is 60% scanned so far and past the layer break, so it looks like it will), the comparison graphs 4x vs 2x will probably shock everyone: I mean we're talking about an exponential improvement for the 2x vs. the 4x burns.
What I am still trying to figure out (and I will need to research it when I get some time) is what the numbers really mean, since even the really "bad" quality burns all play fine (NO visual or audio blips / skips / odd artifacts etc. during payback).
Do the numbers mean the disc may play in one player but not in another?
And with respect to longevity, I think the dye matters, but the burn quality may not mean much for longevity; I guess that is simply determined by how long the disc holds up (whether it be a fantastic burn or a bad burn).
Well... Seems you are fitting in today's world when there is no logic but just perception...
First: You need to produce BD copies that are of best possible quality initially. Degradation can only start from there.
Secondly: Never start with a compromized or borderline burn. This can only get worse. No idea how long these discs will last.
Thirdly: Forget to rely on burned discs. Backup on hard discs and have a strategy for failure.
Top scan is Verbatim JP 4x disc burned at 4x using Pioneer BDR-212. Avg. LDC = 90.23; avg. BIS = 1.72
Bottom scan is Verbatim 'Hard Coat' 6x disc burned at 2x using Pioneer BDR-212. Avg. LDC = 19.45; avg. BIS = 0.24
The average LDC did go up from the point I posted above, but still much better than yesterday's scan (top one) below.
(The MID was the same, but we all know that does not mean much. Next time I will compare exact same media; I did not have any test results from a Verbatim Hard Coat disc burned at 4X). HOWEVER,I had started a quality scan yesterday (think it was the 'Hard Coat' disc burned at 4x) and the results were so disappointing that I aborted the test...
Note the BIS scale for top one goes to 50, the scale for the second one only goes 30, so that should be taken into account if reviewing the graph only visually without reviewing the numbers.
Peak is at layer break with both burns, as expected...
In a nutshell. Doesn't matter how good your discs are. You need to burn at 2x to make good burns in the first place. And for now this is only possible with Pio burners. Right?
Thanks and agreed. Some additional clarifications regarding my line of thought:
First: Agreed regarding starting with the best burn and degradation only starting from there. Unfortunately once the dye starts to deteriorate to the point I am reading about, quality will unfortunately do little to help. And unfortunately BD-R DLs only last up to ~5 years (which is a ridiculously short lifespan) regardless of initial burn quality, unlike CD/DVD or single layer BD-R even which had better lifespans. I think many average consumers (unaware of the lifespan) who are using BD-Rs to archive data are in for a big surprise!
So burn quality can help ensure a lifespan of up to 5 year, but then we're out of luck (which you touched on perfectly in your third point suggestion).
Second - Right; I am certainly trying to avoid borderline burns (although it may be hard to quantify what levels qualify as borderline). Anyway, I am likely to burn at 2x to be safe...
Other point in Second / Third - BINGO! Agreed and that is exactly why I am keeping backups of all my burned data on TWO hard drives.
Your point is exactly why I was only considering these burns temporary (as in 'good for 3 - 5 years max') and will use HDD backups to keep my data protected from loss until 50GB M-Disc prices eventually go down. I will invest in M-Discs since engraving data is obviously the way to go for true longevity; i.e. assuming cost is not a factor which unfortunately currently it still IS.
25GB M-Disc prices are not too bad, but 50GB M-Disc prices are currently still another story...
tldr: Anyway, morale of the story is burn at 2X to get the best quality, as recommended by kufo and Coopervid, along with what I am already doing: also back up data to another medium (e.g. HDD); even then I back up to TWO HDDs; if one fails, I again burn the data to a second drive, so I always have at least two copies (likelihood of 2 HDDs failing at the exact same time is very slim).
Indeed and ODC is great tool to prove that. I feel like I finally got some value out of the LiteOn today!
PS: The funny thing is see the tldr of my last post which I typed before I saw yours which came in while I was busy typing my novel... We're indeed on the same page.
Hmmm.. Perfect summary. However M-Discs seem to be questionable and are not confirmed that they will last that long. According to a magazine called ct here in Germany.
Indeed a very fruitful conversation with you njweb and kufo. BTW - kufo will somewhen / somehow send a disc to me tby snail-mail to check if his burner provides similar good results.
Thanks. Interesting; let me do some more research. I want to find some tests where they actually tested M-discs after 10 years
At this stage of my life, I'll take 35 - 40 years of disc lifespan vs. the 1000 years they claim.
Well so far I found this EXTREME real world test where the guy put the discs in the freezing cold, sun etc. for a long time (7 months or so) and buried them under sand / dirt.
Impressive results for the 25GB M-disc he tested.
25 GB discs are a piece of cake. 50 GB discs have that hurdle with the layer break and this is a completely different animal.
As far as lack of physical deterioration is concerned, given the amount of abuse to which he subjected those 2 discs, I am impressed that the M-disc still "played perfectly", whereas the standard BD-R disc was basically obliterated under the same exact conditions.
Anyway, luckily HDDs are very affordable now to prevent potential data loss from disc damage / deterioration.
ive been burning verbatim m-disc bdxl/bd dual layer and single layer discs with my wh14ns40 and so far so good, I think. ive been burning at default speed(4x and 6x) and ran programs/media off the disc after burn to make sure they weren't corupted. I didn't burn slow, i burned at default speed(4x on 25 and 100 gb discs, and 6x speed on dual layer). you think my discs will be fine burned at default/rated speed?
as long as they last even a small fraction of "1000 years" thats good enough for me, if they last 50 years or more thats good enough for me, 10 or 20 is too low I might want some of this data later on in my life. we can all agree m-disc is way better than organic dyes, but maybe blu rays that have a metal layer(not the cheap lth stuff) could be as good/almost as good as m disc?
Separate names with a comma.