Is it live, or is it Memorex?

[Chewy]

trying to fix my library, I ran across this disk, best example of no quality control.
why? If the disk scanned bad from beginning to end, it might be
something other than dye spread, but what else but a crappy
production line could produce such a disk?

I am about to go back to vhs!

[Chewy]

disk failed with shrink in nec 3550, cycl redun error
disk worked with LG 4163B and shrink

[drfsupercenter]

What's the MID of your problematic Memorex disc?

[Chewy]

top right side of the cdspeed screen under disk info ID.

and a host of other MID's ritek G05
cmc mags, and on and on

[drfsupercenter]

Um... was it the Ritek's that were causing problems, or the CMC Mags?

[Chewy]

all of them, about 1 in ten memorexs scanned above 50

[drfsupercenter]

hmmm... odd. I could expect that from CMC MAGs, but Riteks should work fine... at least they play fine for me... maybe I will scan them some time.

[Chewy]

couple good princo(old ones) still scanning 95,
couple good ritek R03's 85-90

I hate to turn over the apple cart but my testing is not matching up with
a lot of conventional wisdom around here or cdfreaks. On a tip from a senior member there I used my LG 4136B to do the cdspeed transfer test on the disk
first scanned for quality. Conclusion, the benq is picky as hell and the LG
being a great reader is not(some real crap will look good in the LG)
I have attached the transfer test to the first post.

[Chewy]

further confirmation disk transfer tests(performed in high quality readers) cannot be trusted for data integrity. same disk

[geno888]

There is a recent trend on CDF to couple scan with transfer rate test because many reported that bad scans discs read fine.

Until now I posted always scan + transfer rate test. Both tests do complete each other.

In my opinion, scan is a good indication to do previsions on when disc will deteriorate. Transfer rate test indicate readibility of the disc.

A disc with a bad scan have a very short life in my experience, so I do another copy as soon as possible.

To be trustable, transfer rate test must be done on the same drive used to burn the disc, because if the test is done on another drive, the only significance of the test is the ability of that drive to read a bad burned/damaged disc.

[Chewy]

the point was that certain readers(like the LG 4163B) do not give an accurate
report of a disk's quality with a transfer test, they just show how good they can read crap, since the 3550 is a fair reader it can't even finish a transfer
test, which to me means it's a good indicator of bad disks.

hopefully no one will argue that this memorex disk is a good one

the plex 708 that burned that disk is long gone

[geno888]

I agree.

Too bad some burners are not able to do scans. But only transfer rate is not in anyway reliable to determine quality of a disc.

Maybe I'm a CDFreakers, but when I bought a burner, my choice went to a liteon because it's very good for scans

Right now I'm evaluating to buy a plextor: if I can afford, I'll buy a 716 or a 755 (not decided yet)

[Chewy]

I'll buy a 716 or a 755 (not decided yet)

bad scanning support

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=15879&PageId=9

[geno888]

Thanks

I'll read the review

[Chewy]

benq 1640/50 or liteon 1693 paired with a LG 4163/5/7
is the perfect 2 drive combination