Based on the three graphs, can anyone tell me which one is better in writing quality?

All I can see is the Read speed, which looks quite horrible.

The pioneer drives cannot report C1/C2 errors, so you need a different drive to do quality scans.

(in reply to ocd)

An error free burned disc normally should have a smooth reading speed.

(in reply to rugger)

you better stay away from Mitsui media. They used to be the best 2-3 years ago but now they are crap

(in reply to Iggy)

What's so horrible about the reading speed?

(in reply to rugger)

Normally the reading speed is a straight line and its trend is depending on the strategy that the drive supports.

(in reply to ocd)

1. It's impossible to say which one is of better write quality. Speed graphs prove very little in this regard. All we can say that it appears all of the above three scans may have been somewhat problematic for the reading Pioneer drive.

2. Pioneer drives can report c1/c2 errors (can't vouch for accuracy yet, haven't tested enough):



3. Mitsui media is these days MAM-E / MAM-A media. Not all MAM-A discs are bad in quality. Their Gold archival cd-r discs are very good (NIST 10/2004).

best regards,
Halcyon

(in reply to Iggy)

Hey Halc,

Re: The NIST study you referrenced. MAM-A/Mitsui's Gold discs were NOT used... it was actually a Kodak Ultima Gold CD-R, which MAM-A is claiming since they used the same dye type, the results will be the same with their media. Unfortunately, there is much more to CD-R manufacturing then just the dye, as most of us here already know

(in reply to Halcyon)

As most have stated, your pictures are not C1/C2 graphs just transfer rate, probably you need to use CDSpeeds main use (as transfer rate graph), unfortunaly Pioneer DVD writers are not very good at CD writing...

(in reply to Dolphinius_Rex)