Is 16x DVD-media systematically better than DVD+ media?

[MediumRare]

The latest issue (14/2005) of the German computer magazine c't has a comprehensive test of DVD media (44 types). I'm working on a summary which will go up later today (I'm at home with back problems ).

One of the interesting things they found, though, is that the 16x DVD dash-media generally performs better than the plus-media. And they tried to find out why this is.

One of the properties they examined in determining the physical quality index is the radial tracking error (RadialN) which describes the departure of the embossed groove from the ideal position. The DVD+ norm specifies max. 25 nm for 3000 rpm, the measured values were all 3-8x higher- up to 200nm! Strangely, the DVD- values were generally lower (ca. 40-70 nm).

c't suggests that this high value may result from the higher wobble frequency of the groove, which helps laser tracking: this is 817 kHz for plus-media as opposed to 140.6 kHz for dash-media. This allows a simpler manufacturing process (no land prepits) but seems to have drawbacks for high-speed burns and may be the reason for the high radialN values!

I find this intriguing and would appreciate hearing from people with more experience with 16x media or technical expertise!

Ian? dolphie? RJW?

[edit]The summary is up in the c't burner test thread[/edit]

G

[Scour]

Hello!

Maybe this article wake up some people who generally said that +R is better than -R

I read lots of discussions, especially at Cdfreaks. No one have a real argument why +R is better tahn -R, only the faster speeds of +R can be seen as advantage.

The better error-correction of +R is only theoretical and has never been proved by the +RW-alliance

[dolphinius_rex]

I don't think 16x recording is fine tuned enough yet to really see if DVD-R will pull out a little better then DVD+R this way. Many burners still have issues with media burned that fast, regardless of format. Generally speaking however, from my own burning and testing, I think that who made the media, and who it was made for, has more to do with the disc's performance.

Sadly, once you get into the ultra technical aspects of the format (land prepits and wobble frequency) it's a little out of my league still. But I'm still learning!

[hoxlund]

like the saying goes

don't worry about booktype setting just use dvd- media

since day one of dvd burning ive used dvd- media, never had a problem reading them back in anything

[MediumRare]

like the saying goes

don't worry about booktype setting just use dvd- media

since day one of dvd burning ive used dvd- media, never had a problem reading them back in anything

Have you tried DVD-DL media? These have massive compatibility problems.

I'm not really looking at compatibility here, though- writing quality interests me more.

G

[Ian]

Interesting theory MediumRare.

For me, most of the 16x DVD+R media has been hit and miss. It really depends on the drive and/or firmware. With the exception of CMC and Ritek, I have been pretty happy with most of the 16x DVD-R media I've used.

[alexnoe]

The DVD+alliance just, again, released their stuff before it was ready. They did that already with 4x RW speeds and didn't learn anything

[dolphinius_rex]

8x DVD+RDL isn't ready yet either.... ugh!

[alexnoe]

The NEC 3540 tries to write MKM-001-00 @ 8x, but the write quality i'm getting with that is, well, not yet optimal...

[MediumRare]

To quote an unimportant scribbler from Elizabethan England, this was Much Ado About Nothing.

The latest issue of c't (15/2005) had a correction to the media test. Apparently the device used to measure the geometry of the plus media was not calibrated properly! They repeated the measurements and the RadialN values were ca. 3x lower, and hence comparable to those for the dash media. The "mechanical index" changed by up to 30 points and ca. 1 grade for most media (e.g. + instead of 0).

So the difference in burn quality (which is not affected by this error) is not a systematic problem of the "plus" format- it's up to the burner manufacturers to improve this (e.g. firmware).

G

[RJW]

8x DVD+RDL isn't ready yet either.... ugh!

Hmm I wonder on what you make that decision ?
I hope not on some overspeeded media on a burner that has a reputation of not being the best dual layer burner out there. (And that is saying it polite !)

[dolphinius_rex]

8x DVD+RDL isn't ready yet either.... ugh!

Hmm I wonder on what you make that decision ?
I hope not on some overspeeded media on a burner that has a reputation of not being the best dual layer burner out there. (And that is saying it polite !)

Well, I was more basing that on the fact that nothing was ready yet at the time of posting.... but now that's changed I may not have any 8x DVD+RDL media, but it's now become somewhat available in some testing labs, and it's working out. So I'd say it's close to ready (my version of ready is when it's been released for purchase in SOME country, and it works).

[RJW]

I can say that the quality is there however I have my doubts about the support part to the end user. Ohwell let's see what Philips does with there new drive or what Benq can do with some firmware upgrade(s)) or what NEC can do.
They got some time left because I don't expect this media to be there for the public befor the end of september.

[grouch]

hmmm...i've been switching between dvd-r and dvd+r media and i can't say which one is better, and even with bitsetting both formats have worked out fine so far

and after reading all this related technical info, i've come to a conclusion

the general user of media to backup data/videos etc. is concerned to a certain point, which is the disc will play back without errors
so if either formats, plus or minus, has a small variance shown with "in-depth" or scientific industry scanning, but both play back fine in average players or the data can be retrieved with most drives available, then the media is sufficient

right??
if so i'm just gonna find discs that do just that, and not worry about the microscopic details of a disc

[Scour]

Hello!

If I get it right:

DVD+R 16x have lower burn-quality than DVD-R 16x, although DVD+R 16x is much longer avaible on the market?

[alexnoe]

Exactly

[dolphinius_rex]

Hello!

If I get it right:

DVD+R 16x have lower burn-quality than DVD-R 16x, although DVD+R 16x is much longer avaible on the market?

The first available doesn't neccissarily mean the best supported

[Scour]

The first available doesn't neccissarily mean the best supported

I don´t think that any manufacturer support the later avaible DVD-R better than the *+R from the same brand.

[alexnoe]

Why that?

[Scour]

Why that?

Question: Who is to blame for the good DVD-R-results? The manufacturer of the dvd-writer or the manufacturer of the DVD-media?

[dolphinius_rex]

Why that?

Question: Who is to blame for the good DVD-R-results? The manufacturer of the dvd-writer or the manufacturer of the DVD-media?

Both.

[Scour]

Why that?

Question: Who is to blame for the good DVD-R-results? The manufacturer of the dvd-writer or the manufacturer of the DVD-media?

Both.

That answer is to easy

[jsl]

DVD+R 16x have lower burn-quality than DVD-R 16x

What do you base this conclusion on? The C't test? From what I can see in MediumRare's post the only 16x DVD-R media that got a better write quality rating than the DVD+R media from the same maker was the media from Sony. The TDK and Maxell 16x DVD+R discs got a higher rating than the DVD-R discs from the same makers while the 16x MCC discs got the same rating.
And besides, since they f*cked up the measuring of mechanical data who knows if they haven't screwed up more things... I have not seen any other results that would indicate that 16x DVD-R write results would be better than for 16x DVD+R, rather the other way around...

[Scour]

What do you base this conclusion on? The C't test? From what I can see in MediumRare's post the only 16x DVD-R media that got a better write quality rating than the DVD+R media from the same maker was the media from Sony. The TDK and Maxell 16x DVD+R discs got a higher rating than the DVD-R discs from the same makers while the 16x MCC discs got the same rating.
And besides, since they f*cked up the measuring of mechanical data who knows if they haven't screwed up more things... I have not seen any other results that would indicate that 16x DVD-R write results would be better than for 16x DVD+R, rather the other way around...

Overall, the DVD-R seems a little better, in the stability, too.

I don´t want to start a new DVD-R vs. DVD+R-war, but with 16x-media DVD-R seems to be better. I don´t think that any drive-manufacturer makes a better support for DVD-R from the same brand as DVD+R and the DVD+R-media is longer avaible on the market.

[alexnoe]

I have not seen any other results that would indicate that 16x DVD-R write results would be better than for 16x DVD+R, rather the other way around...

Maybe because the C'T didn't test Optodisc, Ritek etc 16x DVD-R

Could actually *anyone* reproduce the bad result with MMC-004?