Media Review

Discussion in 'CD/DVD/BD Blanks' started by Sabertooth, Jan 15, 2012.

  1. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    After some of my older copies started coming up bad, I've begun a review of my 193 BD-R copies. I present here my preliminary data for your consideration. All disks were burned with verify and watched to ensure a successful copy when created. The type 1 Memorex are the oldest and were created in 2009. Type 2 Memorex and the Verbatims were created in 2010.

    To review, I've been ripping back to HD with a Sony BWU-300s which seems quite fault tolerant, and an LG WH10LS30, not so much fault tolerant. If the disks rips with both drives, I considered the disk to still be good and no other action was taken. If the process fails (read errors) on both drives the disk is considered failed. If the process fails with read errors on either platform the disk is considered marginal/failing, and the "good" rip is kept and viewed from the hard drive. If the viewing is successful (no glitches detected), the possible errors are considered recoverable otherwise the disks is considered failed (degraded playback).

    After reviewing 90 disks so far my results are as follows:

    Total failed disks: 21
    Memorex BD-R (Man ID: RITEK BR2-000, type 1 (bright blue)): 17 out of 60
    Memorex BD-R (Man ID: RITEK BR2-000, type 2 (dark blue)): 2 out of 20
    Verbatim BD-R (Man ID: VERBAT IMc-000): 2 out of 10

    Total Marginal/Failing Disks: 23
    Marginal/Failing to Failed: 6 out of 23 (included in Total failed disks)
    Marginal/Failing to Recoverable: 12 out of 23
    Not yet viewed: 5 out of 23

    If you consider all Marginal/Failing disks to be failed then the Total failed disks rises to 38 out of 90. Leaving 52 Good disks.

    The remaining 103 disks to be checked are comprised of Memorex Type 2, Verbatim and Optical Quantum (Man ID: PHILIP RD4).
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2012
  2. nick12

    nick12 Member

    A failure rate of 25% ...
    How were these disks stored?
    I have moved all my burned disks to hard cd jewel cases, after reading about the failure rate caused by plastizers in soft plastic cases.
  3. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    A small (propbably insignificant) number are in the black plastic covers I think you're calling soft plastic. Most are in jewel cases. My media room is in a dry basement with fairly constant temperature and humidity year round.

    The Memorex media (type 1) has a bad reputation and, I found searching the internet, this kind of failure over time is one of those associated with it. Since all of my earliest copies were made on this media, I believe that explains the very high failure rate I've experienced so far.

    I'll be curious to see if the color is the only difference with the type 2 Memorex or if the failure rate climbs over time with these disks. I was surprised to see that two of the Verbatims had failed also. The next fifteen up for review are all Verbatims so I'm curious to see if the rate improves with the larger sample. Lately (2011), I've been using the Optical Quantum (now Vinpower, Man ID: PHILIP RD4)) which don't have a great reputation but, also, didn't turn up a rate of time failure like the Memorex. IOW, the failures appear to be coasters created at burn time.

    The failure rate if you include the failed and marginal/failing is actually over 42%.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2012
  4. nick12

    nick12 Member

    I'd like to help.

    I will do a sampling of my disks, this weekend.
    I have two LG burners.
    Do you have any instructions you want me to follow?
    I would like to add data points that help your thread, which I believe is a very important thread.
    From what you have found, I may have to change my mind about Verbatium LTH.
    They have a stable proven organic dye, from cd and dvd disks.
  5. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Greetings Nick!

    Feel free to contribute your own findings. The larger the sample, the better the data. I laided out my process in the first message of the thread and can't really add anything but a few observations to that.

    If it wasn't for the LG drive I wouldn't be detecting many of the flaws. Every marginal disk but one has failed on the LG while the Sony just plods on through even though it's encountering errors, errors that might/do show up as drop outs (pixelation, etc.) or worse on viewing. For the purpose of ripping, you might want to use the more sensitive LG but, for viewing, you'd probably want to use the Sony since it wouldn't crap out in the middle of a movie as often (though you might get degraded playback occassionaly). I just purchased a new Sony Optiarc BD-5300s this week and initial impressions indicate that it shares the BWU-300s's tolerance for errors. So, you might not see much difference between your two LG's. Another compatability variable that I can only estimate might be which drive burned the disk.

    I agree that the track record for the Verbatim media of other types is very good but my results with the BD-r media aren't much better than other brands which is, to say, pretty horrible. I've just completed preliminary results for the next 20 disks in my list which include another 14 Verbatim VERBAT IMc-000. Out of 14 disks, 6 were marginal (read errors on the LG rip), I viewed two of those, so far, and they were both changed to failed with degraded playback. That said, my sample is propbably from just 1 production run and possibly is not representative (i.e., I got a batch of bad disks).

    I printed a list of my BD-r media ordered by date added to the movie database (which roughly corresponds to the burn date) so that I checked the oldest disks first. There are 45 disks per column so I will provide updates of the totals at those natural break points. Of the next 45, 25 remain which break down to 16 Memorex type 2 (dark blue RITEK BR2-000) and 9 Optical Quantum (PHILIP RD4). All the remaining (50 some) disks are Optical Quantum.

    Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Looking forward to see your results.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  6. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Here's some updated data:
    Blu-ray Media Review Data (145 of 199 Blu-ray BD-R)

    Column: 1
    Date Range: 2/23/2008-10/21/2009
    Total Disks: 45
    Failed Disks: 11/45
    --> Memorex1 Fails: 11/45
    --> Memorex2 Fails: 0/0
    --> Verbatim Fails: 0/0
    --> Optical Quantum Fails: 0/0
    Marginal: 12
    --Marg Fails: 4
    --Marg Okay: 8

    Column: 2
    Date Range: 10/29/2009-5/20/2010
    Total Disks: 45
    Failed Disks: 11/45
    --> Memorex1 Fails: 7/14
    --> Memorex2 Fails: 2/21
    --> Verbatim Fails: 2/10
    --> Optical Quantum Fails: 0/0
    Marginal: 13
    --Marg Fails: 4
    --Marg Okay: 9

    Column: 3
    Date Range: 5/25/2010-1/30/2011
    Total Disks: 45
    Failed Disks: 6/45
    --> Memorex1 Fails: 0/0
    --> Memorex2 Fails: 0/27
    --> Verbatim Fails: 5/14
    --> Optical Quantum Fails: 1/4
    Marginal: 10
    --Marg Fails: 6
    --Marg Okay: 4

    Column: 4 (partial 10 of 45)
    Date Range: 1/31/2011-11/11/2011
    Total Disks: 45
    Failed Disks: 0/10
    --> Memorex1 Fails: 0/0
    --> Memorex2 Fails: 0/0
    --> Verbatim Fails: 0/0
    --> Optical Quantum Fails: 0/10
    Marginal: 0
    --Marg Fails: 0
    --Marg Okay: 0

    Failure By Manufacturer Data:
    --Memorex1: 18/59 = 30.51%
    --Memorex2: 2/48 = 4.17 %
    --Verbatim: 7/24 = 29.17%
    --Optical Quantum (incomplete): 1/14 = 7.14%
    Overall Failure Rate: 28/145 = 19.31%

    Failure + Marginal by Manufacturer Data:
    --Memorex1: 29/59 = 49.15%
    --Memorex2: 10/48 = 20.83%
    --Verbatim: 9/24 = 37.50%
    --Optical Quantum (incomplete): 1/14 = 7.14%
    Overall Failure + Marginal Rate: 49/145 = 33.79%

    The rest should be all Optical Quantum from 2011/12.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  7. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    The next 45 disks (Col 4) are complete. Up to a year old, the Optical Quantum disks seem to be holding up pretty well.

    Column: 4
    Date Range: 1/31/2011-11/11/2011
    Total Disks: 45
    Failed Disks: 0/45
    --> Memorex1 Fails: 0/0
    --> Memorex2 Fails: 0/0
    --> Verbatim Fails: 0/0
    --> Optical Quantum Fails: 0/45
    Marginal: 1
    --Marg Fails: 0
    --Marg Okay: 1

    Failure By Manufacturer Data:
    --Memorex1: 18/59 = 30.51%
    --Memorex2: 2/48 = 4.17 %
    --Verbatim: 7/24 = 29.17%
    --Optical Quantum: 1/49 = 2.04%
    Overall Failure Rate: 28/180 = 15.56%

    Failure + Marginal by Manufacturer Data:
    --Memorex1: 29/59 = 49.15%
    --Memorex2: 10/48 = 20.83%
    --Verbatim: 9/24 = 37.50%
    --Optical Quantum: 2/49 = 4.08%
    Overall Failure + Marginal Rate: 50/180 = 27.78%%

    Only about 20 more (Optical Quantum) disks to go, all burned since November 2011 so not expecting any problems. Unless there's some drastic change, it may be a while before I post the last column (5) data.

    Based on my results, I'll be replacing all Memorex Type 1 disks for sure. The Memorex Type 2 while holding up better than the earlier Memorex disks still aren't great and the Verbatims were really disappointing considering the reputation. While only up to a year old, the Optical Quantums are doing pretty well but we'll have to see if that continues now that they've been acquired by Vinpower.
  8. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    I did not see mention of the burner that was used on these discs? I am particularly interested in knowing which burner was used on the Verbatims? Burned at rated speed?

    With a failure rate of 25% at 1 to 1.5 years, I would not wait too long before re-burning your remaining oldest Optical Quantum's. I have had them fail at 1 year, myself.
  9. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    All burns were done using the latest version of ImgBurn (available at that time). I have two burners detailed in the first post. I had the Sony BWU-300S first so all the first year discs (Memorex type 1) were burned with that. I obtained the LG WH10LS30 a year later but wasn't happy with it until they released the first (and only) firmware update (A9 released end Aug 2010) so most of the second year discs were also burned on the Sony. After that it's impossible to say which disc was burned where. There doesn't seem to be a correlation. No burn exceded the rated speed (4x) and many were burned below the rated speed (2x) especially the Memorex type 1. The Verbatims could have been burned on either burner and would have been burned at their rated speed (4x). Sorry, I can't be more specific. Edit: Checked the dates on the Verbatims and the first was burned around around Feb. 2010, the last in August 2010 so mostly would have been burned on the Sony.

    Is the 25% failure rate from your own experience? My oldest Optical Quantum was burned around Dec 2010 so is a year and a couple months old. My failure rate for the Optical Quantums (so far) is in the range of 2-4% which is significanrtly better than the other brands so far.

    I just purchased a new Sony OEM burner, BD-5300S with firmware v2 which seems like a very fast drive. I'm currently going through and replacing all the Memorex (bright blue type 1) discs. I'm also now doing an anydvd rip back of all new burns on the LG to make sure the new burns are good to start with.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  10. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    Thank you. Different burners will produce different longevity. It may be of value to someone else who has that Sony 300S and a library of Verbs to know that it wouldn't hurt to start looking for trouble.

    As you did not burn equal numbers of all these discs throughout this time period, the statistic generated by total failures/total time per brand is terribly skewed and not meaningful. However, the fact that 25% of your Optical Quantums over one year old have failed would make me 100% likely to be ripping the others back to my hard drive very quickly :). You made a good choice with that new Sony/Lite-on drive. They are excellent rippers. Have you taken advantage of it's Mediatek chip to try quality scanning with Opti drive control? I believe it is capable of it.

    As I have been using and always researching optical media for some time, I know better than to have any sense of brand loyalty. I seem to be in a minority there. You may want to watch your back if you report your Verbatim findings anywhere else. LOT of folks get real offensive real quick if you question the god-given superiority of their Verbies ;).
  11. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Ah, okay I see where the 25% comes from now...I have to laugh a bit that you point out the time skew but then make a statement based on only 4 units which is much too small a sample to draw such a conclusion as a 25% failure rate. I especially don't feel it's reasonable since the total rate of failure is so much lower. Only time will show which is the right conclusion. While I do see your point and can't argue with an abundance of caution, expanding the size of the sample (say to over 9 months) changes the number significantly and while I'm not using any measures of statistical significance (i.e., 2T,etc.), I think your selected sample (4 units) would not be statistically significant either.

    I'm not sure I agree. I think it's meaningful that almost half of the Memorex type 1 failed. It depends on the conclusions you try to draw from the data.

    I was careful to stick to the data. My responses and conclusions at the end was totally justified based on the data and I was careful to qualify the conclusion (small sample of 1 box might not be representative). I'm aware of how some fan boys can be but I'm quite capable of defending my results. Thanks for the heads up though. :)
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
  12. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    I apologize for not making something very clear at the outset. THANK YOU very much for presenting your testing results. :bowdown: Sincerely.

    I am not surprised by the Ritek failures. This problem has come up many times around the forums. And I have seen factory Pulstec BD-ODU tests of their BD-R's fresh from the factory. The error rate is shameful. Not even close to meeting book spec, its a wonder they lasted as long as they did. The Verbatim failures are the first I have run across. Very possible that the burner used may have one of the worst burn strategies for that MID. I'll be watching and asking around to keep an eye on that.

    How to explain to you that your failure by manufacturer numbers should not be presented lest someone mistakenly draw significance from them?

    Ok. I sell Honda cars. I am showing you the reliability results of my cars vs Toyota and Nissan. I have repair records of 50 Toyota's that have been on the road since 2008. I have repair records of 80 Nissan's that have been on the road since 2009. I have repair records of 60 Honda's that have been on the road since 2011.
    25 Toyota's have needed repairs. I call this a 50% failure rate.
    30 Nissan's have needed repairs. I call this a 37.5% failure rate.
    5 Honda's have needed repair. I call this an 8% failure rate.

    "My Honda's are holding up pretty good, aren't they?"

    You think about this for a moment and tell me this is meaningless.

    "What? But my mathematics are entirely correct, I double checked", say I.

    You point out to me that of course my cars look better. They have only been on the road for a year. The only way to give these numbers meaning is to tell you how my cars from 2008 are holding up.

    "We don't have those records", say I. "Just look at the numbers, the numbers are correct. Honda looks to be better than the others, doesn't it?"

    Your time and effort is very much appreciated by me and there are numbers of real significance to be found in your research.

    xBrand-6 month time periods-burns/failures

    yBrand-6 month time periods-burns/failures

    zBrand-6 month time periods-burns/failures

    And really only results have meaning. 0/0 in a time period where none were burned? Not necessary.

    Any other numbers are misleading and non-informational as a result of differing time periods for your samples. That's all.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2012
  13. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    No apologies are necessary, I welcome a vigorous discussion of the merits and limitations of the data I presented. I don't think we actually disagree...mostly.

    I think you try to make more from the data than I meant to present. My percentage numbers have absolutely no time element, they are simply total failures to total discs of that type. Intermediate numbers were simply that, numbers of the total universe at that point in time. I think what you mean to say is that people draw the *wrong* significance from the data (because there should be a consideration of the media's age) or rather that I should further qualify the data which leads to the next point...

    LOL! To summarize, the older [object] could be expected to have a higher failure rate simply because they have greater wear and tear. I totally agree! Look, it's not that I don't understand your point, I do (and thanks for making it overly complicated) :clap: How's this...

    For the record this is not a scientific study, so there are some severe limitations (not limited to the previous discussions) to the interpretation of the data beyond any but the most general conclusions. No direct comparison of media types is possible due to significant discontinuities in numerous areas including but not limited to age of the media, burner used, environmental conditions at the time of the burn and about a billion other variables. :D

    That said I'm not uncomfortable with the conclusions I drew based on the available data and the limitations as described above. :p
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2012
  14. Adbear

    Adbear Well-Known Member

    Just to add, these are not the first Verbatim failures I've heard of or seen for myself. The early Verbatim Blu-ray discs were appallingly bad and I had such a problem with them that myself and others at that I spoke to at the time sent them back and got them exchanged for different brands. Since then they seem to have sorted themselves out, but in the early days they were prone to write failures and disc corruption within 6-12 months across different brands of burners.
    As to the Ritek brand, I've been using their PiiData discs now since they were first released about 4 years ago and except for the occasional write failure which you can get with any discs, all of my written discs are still playing back with no issues or failures if I do a test rip and I've written well over 1000 using that brand alone.
  15. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    So, you feel that the Verbatim BD-R discs are worth another look? I only had one cakebox of 25 discs and there was one write failure. I'm currently using Verbatims for DVD and DVD DL and, for the most part, I'm happy with that media other than an occassional write failure.

    Just an FYI for anyone looking for these discs, I only got hits searching for PiData. They seem to be mainly available in the UK looking at the first page of hits. Do you know of any decent (economical) US vendors? I have to say I haven't been impressed by their RiData line of DVD media (due to excessive write failures).
  16. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    Thanks for taking my post in the light-hearted manner it was intended :). I'm sorry you can't see that calling the Optical Quantum's failure rate better than the other brands based on your total time 2-4% failure rate is identical to the slanted/meaningless conclusions drawn by the Honda Salesman. Not everyone is well-versed on statistics, and it would be a shame if even one person ended up buying OQ's trash as a result.
    Since they do not manufacture media themselves, Optical Quantum buys their media from whichever manufacturer gives them the lowest price in order to make a profit. As a result, the quality of the media in their packages is all over the map. No assurance that the next pack you buy will be anything like the last one.
    Before you consider taking a chance on the widely variable quality of Ritek's in the US, have a look at this, these are Optical Quantum branded Ritek:

    Attached Files:

  17. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    I want you to feel comfortable with being critical. I do not take strongly held convictions as a personal affront. I'm glad you feel comfortable enough to continue our debate on the merits. Do not assume that I don't take your agruments seriously due to the lightheartedness of my responses.

    Ooo, I love pretty graphs. Could you cite these please, I'd love to look at the source behind these graphs. :).

    As you say, my discs were not branded OQ but PHILIP RD4. Would not the discs of a different manufacturer be branded different even though marketed by OQ? Discs that ID differently can obviously not be compared.

    Here we begin to diverge. Your comment (highlighted) seems to point to an axe to grind. You, yourself, said they are inconsistent, meaning they could be good or bad and that caveat emptor applies. This I can't argue with.

    The PHILIP RD4 OQ's will very soon be as old as the Verbatims and Memorex but the indications are they will not show the same failures as those media based on my limited data. As Adbear alluded, the other media may have improved also but my particular batch of OQ's are doing okay so far. You like to exclude my qualifications in your paraphrasing so I've emphasized it here.:doh:

    Changing directions a bit, my real take away here has been that it doesn't seem worthwhile to make the blu-ray backups at this point as the performance across the entire universe of (affordable) media I've tried is less than stellar.:(
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  18. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    Judging by "pretty graphs", it would not be productive to talk about the graphs with you. If you are not familiar with factory level testing with Pulstec BD-ODU or the Blu-ray disc association's book spec standards they will forever be "pretty graphs" to you. There may be others who will find them of interest.

    Your discs are branded Optical Quantum. In my experience, when most folks speak of brand, they mean the brand that is selling them and on the label. This is how I use the word. There are a multitude of Blu-ray brands. Many of them have nothing to do with media manufacturing, they simply buy BD-R's from a manufacturer and re-sell them for a profit. Vinpower/Optical Quantum, Merax, Kodak, Titan, Aleratec, Memorex, Maxell are examples of brands who do not manufacture BD-R. Simply buy them from a manufacturer, slap their name on them, and make money by selling them. Really only three labels commonly available that do contain BD-R's made by that manufacturer. Panasonic, Falcon, and Ridata/Ritek. Verbatim are made by CMC-Taiwan with Verbatim's MID on the disc, Sony are made by Ritek-Taiwan with either Sony's or Ritek's MID. Philips sold their optical media division to MBI-India some time ago, giving MBI the rights to sell MBI-made media with the Philips brand name and MID. Its nearly a full-time job to keep track of who makes what these days.

    You still don't understand that comparing the survival rate of 1 year old OQ's against 2-3 year old other media doesn't work. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

    No axe to grind. My willingness to spend my money on a product is directly proportional to the minimum quality I may receive from them. I have tested many OQ/Vinpower spindles in the last 1 1/2 years, and spoken with resellers about them. They are packaging mostly B grade stuff from MBI , and at MBI's mercy as to what B grade means this month.

    There are good choices in the affordable range. Keep your eyes open, you may run across them :).
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2012
  19. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    This kind of language is simply unacceptable. It's demeaning, condescending and insulting. If you can't curb your insults, you're not welcome in this discussion. Graphs with no citation as you have provided are 'pretty graphs' because they are meaningless without knowing what's behind them (I could photoshop one up for you in a couple minutes). Whether I've seen these type of graphs before is irrelevant, there are many factors and sources and not knowing what's behind the 'pretty graph' makes all the difference in the world.

    How you may use the word is neither relevant nor germane. My presentation is clear in this regard to exactly what I'm referring. Your attempt to manipulate my words to infer something else is merely another dishonest tactic.

    You warned me about the fanboys but there's another category of commenter called a hater that's equally as bad and you begin to clearly fit into that category. Supporting this I'd suggest that your manipulation of the data (taking less than 10 percent of the sample to support your 25% failure rate is called cherrypicking the data, wherein you select a time series that fits your pre-concieved notion of what the result should be). Then you disparage my character and integrity with repeated comparisons to a car dealer. And now you are demeaning and condescending. Your tactics are transparent and not particularly relevant to the discussion or appreciated. I perfectly understand your kind of dishonest tactics and have no intention of changing anything based on such a presentation.

    If you have nothing to offer but insults and unsupported conjecture, please start your own thread.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2012
  20. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    I truly do not know how to be more diplomatic than "we will have to agree to disagree".

    In my silly little allegory, I intentionally put myself in the role of car salesman to try to avoid any perception of insult towards you. None was intended.

    Since when are we calling trying to clarify a term "dishonest and manipulative" :confused:. I was shooting for clarity :). Clearly I missed my mark.

    Sorry we can't see eye to eye on your research. Thank you again for presenting it. Valuable stuff.