Chewy, I am trying!!

[Chewy]

they came
2 100 packs of tyg02 batch GG000158

first disk gave a bad scan w/ 95 QS but the package looked a little roughted up, first disk off other batch gave a 99 with pif total of little over 100

here's an average disk tho

[copyless]

Congrats on getting the 02's.

Sometimes it seems the closer I am to understanding the scans, the farther I am. The scan looks good, but I would have thought that the one spot with the PIF's bunched together would have warranted a QS of lower than 99. I really wish I could find a technical manual on the properties of the tool.

Thanks for the info, I think I am going to take my shot at ordering some more.

[Chewy]

QS is cdspeed is kind of lame, it's based only on the maximum value of PIF,
one spike that's high(speck of dust) determines the quality score, that's why I go for PIF totals also.

[copyless]

Other factors that we (or I) are not inputing are being used somewhere. Because the two scans that I posted to begin this thread have: (1) PIE max of 19, PIF max of 2 with 100 total and it scored 95. (2) was like PIF max of 3 and 113 total and it scored a 93? Yours scores a 99. Due to error correction? I am lost, but there definitely are other things being put into the equation. I know I ask hard questions, but I want to learn some of this stuff, and remember like you, I also strive for technical knowledge.

[Chewy]

1ecc vs 8 ecc scanning interval

here's some homework, test tommorrow

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=96285

remember that screen that shows scanning stats

[copyless]

I see now. Thanks for the link, very nice. I now see and understand how the ECC plays into it. I read it plus all the links it would take you too. Found the overburning interesting also.

[Chewy]

I gave up on understanding much of it, I just want to burn consistent 99's.

[copyless]

Oh, but I did understand it and learned a lot. I understand a whole lot more about what it is reading and how the rows and blocks are set up. Again, Thank You very much for the link.

I am now ready for my quiz.

[Chewy]

what's the chipset on your burner?
and what other family of burners do you think might share that chipset?

and feel free to show us some scans

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=66993

the good, the bad and the ugly

[copyless]

Houston, we have a problem.

I am not on the computer with the info and have not been since yesterday morning. But as soon as I am I will get the info. Man, you ask some tough questions. Should this be in 100 words or less. LOL

I will post some scans later today, of the good, the bad, and the ugly. But hopefully none of them look like Clint.

I tried to reply a couple of hours ago, but I could not get it post, I kept getting the server not available screen, did you have any problems just a few minutes after you posted the questions?

[Chewy]

a lot of server overload problems lately, I'll post some tuco scans later

[copyless]

Yeah, but the screen I got was not the server busy screen, but the one you get when it is totally down. That's why I was asking, because I never had that problem before.

[Chewy]

some of those too

[copyless]

Chewy, I just wanted to get some thoughts on something.

I know that it is the consensus is not to burn to the edge. But I always burn all the way to the edge, and after doing several scans over the past day, I find that I usually never have any problems at the end of the disc.

Now when reviewing other scans, I do see a tendency on other's to have problems close to the edge. Do you attribute this to burners, firmware, or to the media itself? As I am starting to lean closer to a problem with the burners, or firmware. But I would really like to hear some thoughts from you.

[Chewy]

I started out at 4200, moved to 4300, then 4350 and now use 4400MB
as my target with shrink. Anytime I am compressing I crop the credits
to make shrink go faster and preserve quality. I have seen several verbatim disks and even a few sony mij where they screw up right at the very edge
or above 4400. All the wear and tear on the disk is worse here also.
Most of the problems with the burns are imperfect dye spread and defintely aggrevated by higher burn speeds. Another factor is your scanning speed
has increased to the max at this point, that amplifies the errors.

Of your scans I couldn't find any examples but you are using mostly TY media and
are pretty safe above 4400 with it. Now that dual layer is another matter.