|
Hi ALL,
I am a little new to the testing of CDRs. So if anyone could tell me using Nero CD Speed, what results are considered very good, good, OK, bad, and very bad. And also, if I can use this CD Doctor program I hear so much about. I am not sure it is compatible with my drive. Well lets start with an example and then someone can give me their opinion. I have a 74MIN 650MB TDK, burned over 2 years ago, and stored in good condition, with no visible marks/discoloration on it. The actuall written length is 71mins, and 627MB, and its a DATA CD. With ATIP: 97m 24s 01f
Manufacturer: Taiyo Yuden Company Ltd. Recording Layer: Cyanine Material.
And I know that Taiyo Yuden is suppose to be among the BEST for quality CDRs.
I decided to pop this into both my CDR/RW dirve, which is a Ricoh 7200A, and my regular 50x MAX CD-ROM, of which I do not know the brand, nero cd speed just says "E-IDE CD-ROM 50X L V15".
First, for my CD-ROM, using CD Quality Check on Nero CD Speed, and it reported, 458,640 Errors (with 3 red spikes through the majority of the disc, and as many a 6 red spikes directly at the end of the disc (maybe because the CDR is not finalized???)). Then with my CD-ROM and Nero CD Speed ScanDisc, running both the filetest and the surface scan. For the File Test, it gave the result, files checked: 21 / Errors: 0. As for the surface scan, I got the result: 98.83% Good, 0% Damaged, and 1.17% Unreadable.
Next, for my CDR/RW drive, using CD Quality Check on Nero CD Speed, and it reported, 0 ERRORS!!! (no spikes). Then with my CDR/RW and Nero CD Speed ScanDisc, running both the filetest and the surface scan. For the File Test, it gave the result, files checked: 21 / Errors: 0. As for the surface scan, I got the result: 100.00% Good, 0% Damaged, and 0% Unreadable.
I am a little confused as to how my burner returned NO ERRORS AT ALL, but my regular CDROM reported 400000+ errors, and the unreadable sectors.
Now after seeing all this, I am guessing since the burner read it perfectly, the CDR is fine, but why the difference between my CDROM and CDR/RW. And does that mean anything for the longevity of my media? Also, assuming I am using my CDR/RW for my tests, what is considered acceptable for my other media? Is less than 100,000 errors good enough? less than 50,000?, or does it have to be 0 errors? And how does the surface scan need to be, generally, ?% Good, ?% Damaged, and ?% Unreadable. I have a lot of important stuff already stored on CDRs, and back then, I did not know much about quality of CDRs, I just picked up what I could find. So therefore, I would like to test my CDRs, and move the data onto different CDRs, if there is a problem with them, before they die out completely. Also, are all of these tests required before you can make a judgement on that CDR, or is it OK if the first test has no errors, can you determine that it is OK? For example, if I run the CD Quality test first, and I get a result of 0 ERRORS, then is there still a need to run the file test and surface scan? And in the same way, what if I ran only the Surface Test first, and it gave me 100% Good, do I still need to run the file test and the CD Quality Test? Thank You.
SuperG
P.S. Also, please let me know if I can use CD Doctor with my CDR/RW or my CDROM. Thanks.
|
|
as far as longevity goes, as long as you store them in a cool dry place, pretty much any CDR will outlive you. as long as the data is readable, the number of errors doesn't really matter (right?); just means you probably won't be able to add any additional information to it.
however, the ones that seem most susceptible to failure are the ones that have no "finish" on the back of them, and these are almost always light blue and silver on the back. i'm sure everyone has seen these.....no name generic POS.
honestly as long as you avoid these for the important stuff, i don't think you have anything to worry about.
either way, CD-RW is better than CD-R for archiving anyway.....
alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of America's problems.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. April 2003 @ 21:55
|
