Dolphin Longevity Test 3.0 Prep

[europhreak]

you make some good arguments [buck].... but I need to keep the total media amount to no more then 26.

All of a sudden I also have the urge to find some way to include Princo media

Definitely! Princo DVD-R and DVD-RW. Do whatever it takes to put these on the list.

[dolphinius_rex]

you make some good arguments [buck].... but I need to keep the total media amount to no more then 26.

All of a sudden I also have the urge to find some way to include Princo media

Definitely! Princo DVD-R and DVD-RW. Do whatever it takes to put these on the list.

Sorry, too late for new Additions, and Princo never got back to me Also, this is not a study for DVD-RW media.

[dolphinius_rex]

Study Sample E1 failed while burning, and has been replaced from my personal stock. This will be noted on the final study. The first post has been updated to reflect this.

[dolphinius_rex]

All of the disc 1 samples are finished burning, and will ship out for CATS testing this coming week. Disc one is burned on the Pioneer DVR-111D. Disc 2 of each sample is next on my list, and each disc is being burned on my BenQ DW1650.

I posted a scan of my Maxell BQ 8x DVD-R results in the media tests section, and commented on it in the media quality discussion section. It's worth checking out

[dolphinius_rex]

My disc 2 from my Verbatim 16x DVD-Rs failed on me when burned in the BenQ DW1650 (and only made it to 12x in the first place!!). Like with Delkin's 4x DVD-R Gold media, this is going to cost Verbatim some points in the final tally.

First post has been updated to reflect the new information.

[dolphinius_rex]

Third failed disc now, this time a BenQ 16x DVD+R. It was held back to 8x recording only on my DW1650 too, and even THAT couldn't save it!! The replacement burned easily at 16x with decent enough results though.

The first post has been updated with the new information.

[dolphinius_rex]

My MAM-A 16x DVD-R Gold Archival disc (#2) has just failed. Although a 16x burn was attempted, the BenQ DW1650 was only able to burn it at 4x. Playback of the disc in the BenQ DW1640 failed around the 4GB point.

EDIT:
Looks like this might be a reflectivity problem... further details pending a few more tests.

Edit...again:
The disc worked fine at 4x in both the BenQ and the LiteON I'm using for testing. I think it's a reflectivity or possibly a flawed shape issue. I will keep this disc in the study, and see how it performs based on the LiteON's scan mostly.

[Gen-An]

Just updated the first post again, with some more media that is now finalized and will be appearing in the study for sure. Interestingly enough, the stamper code for the Nexxtech 16x DVD-Rs and the Verbatim 16x DVD-Rs is the same!

Well, Nexxtech has been known in the past to supply CMC-made MCC media, so it's not so surprising I guess. I wonder how they perform in comparison to the Verbatim-branded ones.

[dolphinius_rex]

Initial testing data is now available in our subscribers section. It will be released publically eventually. There are a few glitches that need to be worked out before then however.

[jbeale]

I became a subscriber in order to see the intial testing data, but can't find it,

[edit] sorry, found it- didn't realize it was another forum, I was looking in "articles" and "reviews".

[dodecahedron]

LOL you were quicker than me.
i was gonna post the link for you, when quoted the above text your EDIT magically appeared !!!

oh, and welcome to CDRLabs, jbeale
thanks for subscribing

[jbeale]

Thanks for all the great info here, I'm really happy to see this testing being done.

Another question: In looking at the results so far, I'm confused about sample X1, "MAM-A Gold 16x DVD-R". Is this 16x the official rated write speed? On the MAM-A website for gold DVD-R I can only see 8x media listed http://www.mam-a-store.com/dvd-r-media.html

Is this a new product that is not yet generally released?

[dolphinius_rex]

Thanks for all the great info here, I'm really happy to see this testing being done.

Another question: In looking at the results so far, I'm confused about sample X1, "MAM-A Gold 16x DVD-R". Is this 16x the official rated write speed? On the MAM-A website for gold DVD-R I can only see 8x media listed http://www.mam-a-store.com/dvd-r-media.html

Is this a new product that is not yet generally released?

Yup, it's a new product. MAM is having a lot of problems getting stampers for lower speed media. They don't make their own stampers anymore, so they are relying a lot on other companies. They tried having 4x and 8x media with a 16x MID code, but it's confusing to customers. But 16x gold is not a very good idea either I don't think

[jbeale]

They tried having 4x and 8x media with a 16x MID code, but it's confusing to customers. But 16x gold is not a very good idea either I don't think

I didn't know stampers were that difficult to get custom, thanks. I thought only very select customers would be buying archival gold anyway, given how expensive it is vs. standard media, so they could be educated to just burn gold at 4x/8x, guess not.

[dolphinius_rex]

I didn't know stampers were that difficult to get custom, thanks. I thought only very select customers would be buying archival gold anyway, given how expensive it is vs. standard media, so they could be educated to just burn gold at 4x/8x, guess not.

You'd be amazed at how many people don't pay ANY attention to the burn speed vs. the rated speed. People just pop discs into their drive and hit burn, and leave things on "automatic". This is one of the reasons why I always loved BenQ drives... they could burn any disc as fast as you wanted, but you needed to go into their extra software and enable it first... otherwise you were stuck with the rated speed of the MID code, which is really what people SHOULD be getting unless they are "power users" or similar.

[Scour]

@dolphinius_rex

I can´t remember one media that get faster burned by my 1640 as it´s rated speed

[dolphinius_rex]

@dolphinius_rex

I can´t remember one media that get faster burned by my 1640 as it´s rated speed

Only one disc can be overclocked normally on the DW1640, however you can push ANY disc (single layer, write once media) to an attempted 16x using QSuite.

[Scour]

I know

But my point is, that the DAU who uses everytime the automatic/max. Speed don´t know what Qusuite is and don´t activate overspeed

[dolphinius_rex]

I know

But my point is, that the DAU who uses everytime the automatic/max. Speed don´t know what Qusuite is and don´t activate overspeed

I would make the argument that people who don't know about QSuite are 9 times out of 10 the kind of people who SHOULDN'T be overclocking their media anyways

[RJW]

I agree !

[jbeale]

I thought that the CATS DVD analyser would give an "absolute" measurement of recordable DVD quality. But that may not be the case.

Based on the below white paper from Audiodev, who make the CATS equipment, it looks like they recommend calibrating the machine with a DVD-R master from the same dye lot if you're testing DVD-R (for example).

http://www.audiodev.com/filearchive/2/2 ... %20DVD.pdf

Sounds like they don't recommend testing DVD-R to a single "absolute" standard, but only relative to similar discs?

To quote from the PDF:
---
“To ensure playability, it is essential to measures as closely as possible to the reference labs. This can be achieved by calibrating the CATS analyzer with a disc using the same process and dye technology as the discs being manufactured”, says Magnus Wikstrand, AudioDev’s Measurement Development Manager. [...]

Phase-change materials are fairly similar, but if a test system for DVD-RW/DVD+R is calibrated with a disc using one phase-change material and pre-groove design, and then used to measure discs using another phase-change material and pre-groove design, the measurement accuracy will be affected, thus the ability to give a true picture of disc quality and playability. For DVD-R/DVD+R the differences can be even larger as pre-groove designs are optimized for each individual dye technology.
---

I really don't understand this. The first sentence says you have to calibrate to an absolute standard. The second sentence says you have to calibrate to a local (non-absolute) standard, and the next paragraph says each type of disc is different and there is no one standard.

It strikes me that ultimately there is only ONE standard if you want all your DVD, DVD+/-R, DVD whatever discs to play on the same set-top-box... right?

[Halc]

Good question.

I _think_ the point AudioDev is trying to make is:

1) there is no reference standard for dvd test measurement. That is, there is no single standard to calibrate to. This is, of course a fact and has been covered here at CDFreaks and at other places several times.

2) If you want to measure a certain type of discs (DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, etc), you should calibrate your analyzer to that disc type from your production.

3) Furthermore, you should calibrate your analyzer to the exact type of disc (certain dye, molding, speed, etc) that you will be using in your production.

Now 1 is understandable.

2 is also somewhat, but I think is partially in conflict with what I've learned from consumer readers. Namely, they all have their skill/failings in reading different types of discs. If your analyzer only measures with a tracking calibration of one type, how applicable are your test results to the consumer device reading ability at large? Not always great, is my argument, but that is not the point of AudioDev testing.


Which brings us to argument no. 3:
The point of testing with any analyzer, AudioDev or otherwise, is to measure the relative changes of the production variability of your discs with a tight enough level of accuracy.

That is, you are able to tell if disc number 9741 is relatively at the same level of quality as discs number 1 (first produced). If you've ensured the playability of disc number 1 in consumer devices, you should be fairly secure that no. 9741 is roughly equally readable if it measures similarly to disc no. 1.

Now, why to calibrate to a disc from your production (argument 3)?

I have a theory:

AudioDev understands (of course) the same thing that us the hobbyists have started to understand in the past few years: NO single measure (AudioDev or any other) exists to ensure that a disc is good/readable. This is due to how reading of the dvd disc is specified (search more for dvd and cd reading specs on this, if you are interested, I've posted about this earlier).

That is, to ensure a level of flexibility & usefulness of AudioDev scans, one must calibrate the reading part to a situation that more closely reflects the real world reading devices capabilities. That is, match AudioDev more with the devices that will read the discs from your production.

[dolphinius_rex]

Heh, funny that this thread was resurrected today...

Well here's an update:

The company I was using to do CATS testing on my Longevity Study discs never returned a bunch of them to me. This REALLY ticked me off, and my project has been in limbo since then... last night I said screw it, I have 2 complete sample batches, and a small amount of the 3rd sample batch... I'm doing everything I can do with these remaining discs.

So despite a significant setback, I am moving ahead with what I have left, which is still 2 complete sample sets (sample sets 2 and 3). Followup testing began last night. A little later then originally planned, but still within a useful window I believe.

[MediumRare]

The company I was using to do CATS testing on my Longevity Study discs never returned a bunch of them to me.

Were you paying to have them tested or was someone doing you a favour? Either way, that's a bummer!

Followup testing began last night. A little later then originally planned, but still within a useful window I believe.

Be sure to save KProbe raw data and the text results (if you do DVDScan tests).

G

[dolphinius_rex]

The CATS testing was being done as a favour....

And don't worry, all raw data files are being saved

I'm not doing DVDScan tests generally, I've got a lot of work ahead of me without adding extra tests...