Are TYG02 FAKES?

[liteonrules]

I just bought 100 pack $27.99 4X DVD-R taiyo yuden TYG02 from TECHBARGAINS.COM AND i was wondering could these be fakes. i thought that the 4x were TYG01 but i received TYGO2. They burn at 12x on my modified firmware NEC 3500A but i no longer have a BENQ OR A LITEON to scan them for quality testing.
i was also would like to know if there is a program to scan these discs with the NEC 3500A

[dolphinius_rex]

The only way to know if by looking at the serial number on the disc. Post the serial number, and I'll tell you if it's made by Taiyo Yuden, and possibly even who made it if they AREN'T Taiyo Yuden

[Boba_Fett]

I just bought 100 pack $27.99 4X DVD-R taiyo yuden TYG02 from TECHBARGAINS.COM AND i was wondering could these be fakes. i thought that the 4x were TYG01 but i received TYGO2. They burn at 12x on my modified firmware NEC 3500A but i no longer have a BENQ OR A LITEON to scan them for quality testing.
i was also would like to know if there is a program to scan these discs with the NEC 3500A

Techbargains is not a store, they link to good deals on other sites. Where did you buy them exactly, if you told me that I could possibly deduce whether they are fake or not by that.

[RJW]

Maybe Supermedia store.
Note 2 things of supermedia store deals.

1 Shrinkwraps sucks for DVD recordables. In other words good media is trashed thanks to bad packageing.

2 If it's supermedia store then it's genuine TY however it's the budget/value version which means that it's a lower quality version. Still ok media but less good as the more expensive stuff. (For this reason 8x code on 4x approved media.)

[liteonrules]

The only way to know if by looking at the serial number on the disc. Post the serial number, and I'll tell you if it's made by Taiyo Yuden, and possibly even who made it if they AREN'T Taiyo Yuden

this was on the disc in the middle GG000099 BUT if there is something else i need to give you , please tell what program i could use to give you the serial number

[dolphinius_rex]

The only way to know if by looking at the serial number on the disc. Post the serial number, and I'll tell you if it's made by Taiyo Yuden, and possibly even who made it if they AREN'T Taiyo Yuden

this was on the disc in the middle GG000099 BUT if there is something else i need to give you , please tell what program i could use to give you the serial number

Looks like the legit stuff to me!

[liteonrules]

i am happy to hear that these are legit, thanks dolphinius_rex. i hope to buy a used liteon dvd rw cheap somewhere just for testing purposes and maybe use as dvd rom to download the movies on to harddrive then back to my NEC 3500

[hoxlund]

how cheap can you get a used litey?

$47 and you have yourself a new drive from newegg

[dolphinius_rex]

LiteON's are unrealistic testers anyways... if you have to have only 1 drive for testing (2 or threee would be preferable) I would suggest the BenQ DW1620. It can measure Jitter quite well, and the PIE and PIF scores are often much more realistic then any LiteON I've seen.

[rdgrimes]

LiteON's are unrealistic testers anyways... if you have to have only 1 drive for testing (2 or threee would be preferable) I would suggest the BenQ DW1620. It can measure Jitter quite well, and the PIE and PIF scores are often much more realistic then any LiteON I've seen.

I think what you mean is that your Benq gives you the results you want to see. There's no such thing as "realistic" or "unrealistic" error scans. They are what the are, in whatever drive is used.

[dolphinius_rex]

LiteON's are unrealistic testers anyways... if you have to have only 1 drive for testing (2 or threee would be preferable) I would suggest the BenQ DW1620. It can measure Jitter quite well, and the PIE and PIF scores are often much more realistic then any LiteON I've seen.

I think what you mean is that your Benq gives you the results you want to see. There's no such thing as "realistic" or "unrealistic" error scans. They are what the are, in whatever drive is used.

Ok then... how about this?

The scans provided by LiteON drives, especially in the case of newer models, provide information which is highly unreliable when compared to the real world results of the media that was tested.

Where the term "real world results" is used, I am referring to how the disc performs in a wide range of DVD-ROMs and DVD Players.

To further explain my point, I am saying that the scans provided by LiteON DVDRW drives are more likely to provide a person with information which will cause them to make erroneous or potentially data-unsafe decisions, when compared to either a Plextor or a BenQ based drive, or even compared to a transfer rate test run on most DVD-ROM units at 12x or higher.

But in general, I thought it summed up the above pretty nicely to say that the scans were "unrealistic" because the results shown often point to unrealistic expectations for the media tested.

Better?

[rdgrimes]

LiteON's are unrealistic testers anyways... if you have to have only 1 drive for testing (2 or threee would be preferable) I would suggest the BenQ DW1620. It can measure Jitter quite well, and the PIE and PIF scores are often much more realistic then any LiteON I've seen.

I think what you mean is that your Benq gives you the results you want to see. There's no such thing as "realistic" or "unrealistic" error scans. They are what the are, in whatever drive is used.

Ok then... how about this?

The scans provided by LiteON drives, especially in the case of newer models, provide information which is highly unreliable when compared to the real world results of the media that was tested.

Where the term "real world results" is used, I am referring to how the disc performs in a wide range of DVD-ROMs and DVD Players.

To further explain my point, I am saying that the scans provided by LiteON DVDRW drives are more likely to provide a person with information which will cause them to make erroneous or potentially data-unsafe decisions, when compared to either a Plextor or a BenQ based drive, or even compared to a transfer rate test run on most DVD-ROM units at 12x or higher.

But in general, I thought it summed up the above pretty nicely to say that the scans were "unrealistic" because the results shown often point to unrealistic expectations for the media tested.

Better?

I'd say that's a load of complete nonsense, and not substantiated by any actual test results, and also in complete contradiction to the experiense of the majority of people. Not to mention it demonstrates a questionable understanding of what is being reported in the tests.

[dolphinius_rex]

I'd say that's a load of complete nonsense, and not substantiated by any actual test results,

You don't read my reviews do you? Or even compare the results of transfer rate tests and other scans done now by Ian as well on HIS reviews?

and also in complete contradiction to the experiense of the majority of people.

No, it's just contradictory to what (in my personal opinion), lazy people who prefer a quantity of tests over quality of results tend to push on people. It's not my fault that certain influential groups of people have pushed poor methods of testing on to large groups of people, since it makes them look good, and gives consumers a feeling of control and understanding which isn't really warranted.

Not to mention it demonstrates a questionable understanding of what is being reported in the tests.

It has been said that to be damned by the devil is to be truly blessed.

[rdgrimes]

Like I said, a questionable understanding of what is being tested, and the meaning of the results. Comparing results from different drives is, and always has been, foolish and a waste of time. Resorting to name calling just further demonstrates your insecurity. It's also very irresponsible to suggest to the uninformed public that they shouldn't test their media because the drive they happen to have doesn't measure up to your ill-conceived standards. What's important is that people do SOME kind of quality testing, that they only do it on one drive and with one set of testing parameters to approximate some sort of control and consistancy.
Comparing results from different drives is just confusing, and proves nothing.

[tony_g]

Ok, maybe I am a newbie (on this forum) but it is my understanding that only testing with one burner will give you a good indication of being able to read the data on THAT burner, BUT it is an unreliable way of knowing if it will be readable on a different brand of burner. Thus testing on as many different drives as possible is a good way of "future proofing" and not tying yourself to one brand of burner.

My question to both of you is: Is this a fair assumption?

IF it is a fair question than I believe that, for a single burner owner, Liteon's are a less than optimal choice for backing up data due to their unreliable reporting of a potentially bad burn.

[dolphinius_rex]

Ok, maybe I am a newbie (on this forum) but it is my understanding that only testing with one burner will give you a good indication of being able to read the data on THAT burner, BUT it is an unreliable way of knowing if it will be readable on a different brand of burner. Thus testing on as many different drives as possible is a good way of "future proofing" and not tying yourself to one brand of burner.

My question to both of you is: Is this a fair assumption?

IF it is a fair question than I believe that, for a single burner owner, Liteon's are a less than optimal choice for backing up data due to their unreliable reporting of a potentially bad burn.

The main problem is that on multiple occasions I have run into situations where even when my LiteON reported a good burn, the disc was barely readable on that drive, or even was not readable to the end of the disc. With newer DVDRW drives, this is even true for testing CD-R/RW media, which was not true in the older LiteON CD-RW drives

This is why I believe that a transfer rate test is the best way of testing a disc for people who are not willing to spend a serious amount of effort understanding their discs.

It is *VERY* easy to get the wrong impression of a disc's performance by only looking at a PI/PIF score test, but if the disc fails a transfer rate test, the problem is obvious.

[Ian]

Alright guys.. let's be civil here. Both of you have your opinions, but I'm not liking the way things are heading. Be nice or I'll have to put my moderator underwear on.

[RJW]

The general message Dolphinius REX said is right : New Lite On's are less good scanners as Benq 1620 (PRO) or Plextor 712/715 to use for indication of how the media performs overall.
Still his formulation on some points could be a better and leaves the space open to argue about the thing.
However he's not the only one.(just check some other comments in this topic or check some other posts. Remember nobody's perfect.)

Check also the followeing statements on the topic by Halc. http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 525#139525
I think that one says it better when we're disccusing lite on as testers . (I mean what's behind the [evil jest mode on] and on which I reacted with the 3 applause emoticons.)

[dodecahedron]

Alright guys.. let's be civil here. Both of you have your opinions, but I'm not liking the way things are heading. Be nice or I'll have to put my moderator underwear on.

LOL i thought it was "moderator cap" or "moderator hat".
i guess things are a little more kinky here @ CDRLabs

[RJW]

Yeah that comment of Ian really scared me. It will make me look twice my postings to make sure there polite enough.

[dolphinius_rex]

Yeah that comment of Ian really scared me. It will make me look twice my postings to make sure there polite enough.

Yeah, it shut me up for sure!

[flashware]

I just bought 100 pack $27.99 4X DVD-R taiyo yuden TYG02 from TECHBARGAINS.COM AND i was wondering could these be fakes. i thought that the 4x were TYG01 but i received TYGO2. They burn at 12x on my modified firmware NEC 3500A but i no longer have a BENQ OR A LITEON to scan them for quality testing.
i was also would like to know if there is a program to scan these discs with the NEC 3500A

Techbargains is not a store, they link to good deals on other sites. Where did you buy them exactly, if you told me that I could possibly deduce whether they are fake or not by that.

Sorry to raise this thread from the dead.. found it in a google search, but just wondering my "Tuyo Yuden" discs, the code on each one is: 8MA2180206 - any idea what they REALLY are?

Cheers

[Kitto]

Sorry to raise this thread from the dead.. found it in a google search, but just wondering my "Tuyo Yuden" discs, the code on each one is: 8MA2180206 - any idea what they REALLY are?

Cheers

Looks like a fake TY... sorry to hear about that...

[flashware]

Yeh, thats what I figured... damn Aussie crap!

If the media guru could identify what they are for me, that'd be super

Cheers

[dolphinius_rex]

Sorry to raise this thread from the dead.. found it in a google search, but just wondering my "Tuyo Yuden" discs, the code on each one is: 8MA2180206 - any idea what they REALLY are?

Cheers

Is that the ONLY serial number on the disc? if so, is it in the clear plastic part of the disc, or the mirror band? if not, please also list the second serial number, and where it is located.

This number doesn't fit my existing serial number systems, but it might be new. It doesn't look like real Taiyo Yuden though