As the title says..........
I thought this was kick ass media, so I bought 150 of them, FUJI branded, 4x obviously.
But they are getting bad scans from burning on both my benq's 1620 and 1610, and my NEC 3500. Any help?

Try 4X scan speed.

my understanding is the scan speed should be set to 4x as furballi mentioned.

why is that? The disc type, drive type, or burn speed?

Ok, now everyone is changing it? I thought BenQ Forum Standards were 8x maximum speed selected?

whats the diff. All the scans are bad, so it cant matter that much in that case. Also the scan speed slows down a lot periodically, doesnt go past 3x for a good part of the test, where as I never saw that before on other discs. Could be the nero version, I dunno.

anyway the scans are still bad at Im half way through and there are at lesat 600 PIF and 100,000 PIE so 4x scanning didnt help. Isnt this media supposed to be great? Is that crap or not? Actually Ill post the finished scan to show you. Just to be safe

Maybe Fuji Branded RicohJPNR01's aren't as good as Ridata branded RicohJPNR01's. That *still* is not a terrible burn by any means. I'd test it to see if it plays in your stand-alone and as long as it does I'd keep the backup. I burn those discs at 8x with excellent results (The Ridata branded RicohJPNR01's...).

whats the diff. If the media code is the same than its the same. The only difference is the label printed (or not ) on the top of the disc (ie FUJI). If it has the exactly media code than its the same disc that came off machine.

Now the expectation is so high, you call it a bad burn. But.. it looks fine in an absolutely standard. PIE is well below 50, PIF never went above 10, PIFs peaks are well separated, though I admit the total number is a little bit high.

Regarding the scan speed.. 12x is not typical, so you may try 8x to compare it with others.

I also see the periodic speed drop for my 1620, and sometimes I don't see it. It seems that nobody has the answer when it appears and when it doesn't. I don't think it is related to the quality of the disc. I have excellent scans with the speed drops.

Ok cool. In the future, if it plays in my dvd player well, then its a good burn. I think more people should follow this rule. Scans dont mean a thing, it wont change the burn that was done. I guess its a good way to see if your drive is working right, but the people who scan EVERY copy they make.....COME ON! Get a real hobby!

No. it's not the same. First of all, not all the media with one code comes from the same machine. There are "good" machines and "bad" machines. Do the company mix all of them and send them randomly? Of course not, that's not the spirit of capitalism.

Also.. another example is the re-labeled media. Company A (like ritek) ships an amount of discs to a company B, like Fuji, Verbatim, Sony or whatever. If company B doesn't like it and reject it, what happens to the disc? Will company A destroy all of them to control their reputation? Well.. some does so.. but many of them just re-print the surface of the disc and sells it. There are many more things to consider other than media code.

Having said all of these, I don't mean to blame Fuji. In fact, I expect their ricohjpnr01 is better than the other brands of ricohjpnr01s because of the above reasons.

To compare, here's a RICOHJPN R01 i just bought and burnt yesterday... They are Ricoh branded DVD+Rs rated 1x - 4x.

Booby try T firmware.

And to compare to another brand, Ritek dvd printable. As posted in the Benq media thread, the results are very bad.
1)B7U9 at 4x
2)B7U9 at 4x
The second burn is the best I've managed so far, although not impressive at only 4x. 8x burning gives quality scores between 0-50. When scanning the first part of the discs look very good but around 3-3.5 Gb mark, the errors just accelerate.

wow... thats pretty bad... I burnt my Ricoh's at 8x and got good scans like the one i posted above... i guess some batches must be bad.

well here it is with T FW. Any comments. Think if its better it will stay consistent?

EDIT: Its the same scan quality not any better by a hair really. So I guess it doesnt matter about the firmware.

boobytrap// Yes, it's better. IMO, the most important thing is the PIF max and total.
mcyj's scan looks pretty but the PIF total isn't so far from yours. I have TYG01 discs that has twice more PIEs than yours but total PIF~100. I'm happy with them.

If all burns look more or less the same as this, I can hardly imagine this disc will make any readability problem.

Don't be too disappointed. As pointed just here, there are far worse ricohjpnr01s. Mine (from Newegg 100 Ridata pack) is very similar to yours or maybe a little bit better. The quality fluctuates and in the end it's your luck that is tested.

Bring the Fuji back to the place of purchase for an exchange. Fuji media includes a lifetime warranty.

But why? I don't see anything wrong with any of his scans. Don't you think it's unfair towards the manufacturers(Fuji) if people begin to send back discs that get a quality score of 97(not that Cdspeed scan is the definite measure of a good burn)

Have to agree with jushua. It is unfair to the manufacturer's of the media if people start bringing back discs just because they aren't quite on par with other scans that they have seen. RicohJPN R01's are a very standard media and while this thread shows some of the poorer burns on the media I've ever seen it's still passable (outside of the scans with the *really* big spikes at the end of the disc - ouch.

The other thing I'm starting to question is if maybe we're not seeing some Grade "B" 4x media slip through the cracks now as manufacturer's are trying to get sell all of their 4x media since 8x is become more standard? That's my guess at least... looks like 4x is definitely on the way out.

It's PIFs that really matter anyways.

its interesting that the printable surface has a poor scan in post #15. i have never got a great scan on printable media. the jitter is very high which i think is due to printable surface on the disc making it unbalanced. the disc is spinning at 8x its normal speed, and if not well balanced i think you will get poor scans especially on the outer edge.

so why is it interesting then?