Copied disc - inherit errors?

[Charlie]

I just ran the Scandisc utility in Nero 'CD Speed' to check the surface and
files of a newly written CD-R - it was a brand new disc from a fresh batch
of Imation CD-R's. It has no scratches, marks or fingerprints - but the
results of my test showed that 20.07% of the disc is damaged. Now, I copied
onto it the contents of a very old CD-RW.....so I'm just wondering if a copy
of a disc will inherit the damage of the original media? Is this known to be
the case?

Thanks for your input.

[Mike Richter]

MrChiversRegal wrote:
I just ran the Scandisc utility in Nero 'CD Speed' to check the surface and files of a newly written CD-R - it was a brand new disc from a fresh batch of Imation CD-R's. It has no scratches, marks or fingerprints - but the results of my test showed that 20.07% of the disc is damaged. Now, I copied onto it the contents of a very old CD-RW.....so I'm just wondering if a copy of a disc will inherit the damage of the original media? Is this known to be the case?

The copy will be of the bytes as recovered from the original. If the
original reads an error, the copy will contain it. An error which is
correctable on re-reading will probably not result in a byte error and
therefore will not be reproduced in the copy.

Mike
--
mrichter@cpl.net
http://www.mrichter.com/

[smh]

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

MrChiversRegal wrote: I just ran the Scandisc utility in Nero 'CD Speed' to check the surface and files of a newly written CD-R - it was a brand new disc from a fresh batch of Imation CD-R's. It has no scratches, marks or fingerprints - but the results of my test showed that 20.07% of the disc is damaged. Now, I copied onto it the contents of a very old CD-RW.....so I'm just wondering if a copy of a disc will inherit the damage of the original media? Is this known to be the case?

How did you make the copy? Did you use "CD Copy" and on the fly? If
so, is the read speed of source drive twice the write speed? Anyhow,
the only scenario where a copy will inherit the damage is when you
specify "raw" read in the read option. I am inclined to think that your
problem stemmed from some write error or bad media.

(BTW, thanks for the info about DriveSpeed depending on the media.)


========================================================
Who Is Mike Richter and
Why Are They Saying All These Horrible Things About Him?
========================================================
http://tinyurl.com/6eldj

(No Pipsqueaks have been able to prove ANY of the following is a LIBEL)
( -- despite Mikey claimed to have proof of misquotes !! )

Mike Richter is a LIAR (wife beating)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (critical bugs)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (major bug)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (nda limit)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (nda)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (no secret)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (no secret)(ii)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (dae)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (enhanced-cd)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (no enhanced cd)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (enhanced-cd/cdr-faq)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (cd-extra/cd-text)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (cd-extra/sao/tao)(i)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (cd-extra/single-session)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/winme)(i)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/winme)(ii)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/win2k)(i)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/win2k)(ii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/win2k)(iii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/win2k)(iv)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/plextor)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(i)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(ii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(iii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(iv)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(v)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(vi)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(vii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(8a)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(9a)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (i)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (ii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (iii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (iv)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (v)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (vi)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (vii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (viii)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (ix)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (x)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (xi)
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/sparing) (xii)

Mike Richter is a LIAR (supplied cd)

What's wrong with Mike Richter (Tim Kroesen) (i)
What's wrong with Mike Richter (Tim Kroesen) (ii)

Mike Richter Wow! Wow! Wow!

Mike Richter's Exquisite Sense of Time (i)
Mike Richter's Exquisite Sense of Time (ii)
Mike Richter's Exquisite Sense of Time (iii)

Mike Richter & "Looooooooonng" Time for Nothing

What an Asshole

[Charlie]

"smh" <smhong@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41FB2586.B5E6F327@mindspring.com... . -------------------------------------- Mike Richter, were you born with "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face? -------------------------------------- MrChiversRegal wrote: I just ran the Scandisc utility in Nero 'CD Speed' to check the surface
and files of a newly written CD-R - it was a brand new disc from a fresh
batch of Imation CD-R's. It has no scratches, marks or fingerprints - but the results of my test showed that 20.07% of the disc is damaged. Now, I
copied onto it the contents of a very old CD-RW.....so I'm just wondering if a
copy of a disc will inherit the damage of the original media? Is this known
to be the case? How did you make the copy? Did you use "CD Copy" and on the fly? If so, is the read speed of source drive twice the write speed? Anyhow, the only scenario where a copy will inherit the damage is when you specify "raw" read in the read option. I am inclined to think that your problem stemmed from some write error or bad media.

I have a combo drive, so no on the fly recording for me. I just used Nero
Express 6 to copy the disc (burn an image, then straight onto the new
media). The actual original is a *very* old, partly scratched (10x max
write) CD-RW that I know has resulted in read errors in the past - the
destination disc was a brand new, blemish free Imation CD-R (52x
max...though disc wrote at 40x).

It's just that I thought even if there are errors on the original - but it's
all read by the drive by re-reading/slowing down, therefore all the data is
recovered - that you would not inherit the errors on the original when
making a copy. I'm a bit of a novice you see, so I didn't know how this
works.

(BTW, thanks for the info about DriveSpeed depending on the media.)

No probs.

[Charlie]

"Mike Richter" <mrichter@cpl.net> wrote in message
news:360mm8F4qednrU3@individual.net... MrChiversRegal wrote: I just ran the Scandisc utility in Nero 'CD Speed' to check the surface
and files of a newly written CD-R - it was a brand new disc from a fresh
batch of Imation CD-R's. It has no scratches, marks or fingerprints - but the results of my test showed that 20.07% of the disc is damaged. Now, I
copied onto it the contents of a very old CD-RW.....so I'm just wondering if a
copy of a disc will inherit the damage of the original media? Is this known
to be the case? The copy will be of the bytes as recovered from the original. If the original reads an error, the copy will contain it. An error which is correctable on re-reading will probably not result in a byte error and therefore will not be reproduced in the copy.

Yes, that is what I was wondering. I thought that if all data is read, even
if the drive had to re-read or slow down to get it, that because you are
putting said data onto a new, perfect disc - it wouldn't contain errors. I
can't see it being a bad destination disc, it's from a batch of 10 new
Imation discs that have all been tested to be OK - this is why I had a
feeling the source disc being old, scratched and having outdated write
speeds could be at fault.

Cheers.

[smh]

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

MisterChiversRegal wrote: "smh" wrote: MrChiversRegal wrote: I just ran the Scandisc utility in Nero 'CD Speed' to check the surface and files of a newly written CD-R - it was a brand new disc from a fresh batch of Imation CD-R's. It has no scratches, marks or fingerprints - but the results of my test showed that 20.07% of the disc is damaged. Now, I copied onto it the contents of a very old CD-RW.....so I'm just wondering if a copy of a disc will inherit the damage of the original media? Is this known to be the case? How did you make the copy? Did you use "CD Copy" and on the fly? If so, is the read speed of source drive twice the write speed? Anyhow, the only scenario where a copy will inherit the damage is when you specify "raw" read in the read option. I am inclined to think that your problem stemmed from some write error or bad media. I have a combo drive, so no on the fly recording for me. I just used Nero Express 6 to copy the disc (burn an image, then straight onto the new media). The actual original is a *very* old, partly scratched (10x max write) CD-RW that I know has resulted in read errors in the past - the destination disc was a brand new, blemish free Imation CD-R (52x max...though disc wrote at 40x).

Imation is not quality disc (and writing at 40x for 52x rated may
indicate that).

Check out the very old cd-rw with CD Speed and see if there are bad
spots (red squares).
It's just that I thought even if there are errors on the original - but it's all read by the drive by re-reading/slowing down, therefore all the data is recovered - that you would not inherit the errors on the original when making a copy. I'm a bit of a novice you see, so I didn't know how this works.

If there were no uncorrectable errors (red squares) on the old cd-rw,
there shouldn't be any red or yellow squares - IF the Imation disc was a
good one.

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

[Charlie]

"smh" <smhong@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41FCA9B0.AFCB3C12@mindspring.com... Imation is not quality disc (and writing at 40x for 52x rated may indicate that).


No, I just never activated 'turbo mode' (holding eject button for 5 seconds
to activate 52x max writing speed.....I prefer to just use the 40x really).
I can and have written to these Imation discs successfully at 52x though -
just to test them out. As for Imation not being good discs in general, I've
read all the stuff about them once being OK because they were once made by
Taiyo Yuden - and that they no longer are.....but the fact is, I've never
had a disc fail on me yet, not one. I've been using them, or switching
between them and Memorex (blue dye), for ages. Of course, I'm aware of the
shelf life issue, but 10 years is plenty for the things I use them for -
extra special data, stuff I want to keep for ages and important back-up's go
on gold discs (Taiyo Yuden). I've never considered buying more expensive
discs for un-important jobs - it's not worth it to me really. Though as I
have presently run out of gold discs at the moment - I used this Imation
disc to copy the old Ricoh CD-RW that had fairly important stuff on - bar
the report of red/yellow squares in Nero, all data is intact and it can
still be read - I was just curious about the issue of whether the errors are
inherited or not.
Check out the very old cd-rw with CD Speed and see if there are bad spots (red squares).

Yes, there are a small percentage of red squares on it.
It's just that I thought even if there are errors on the original - but
it's all read by the drive by re-reading/slowing down, therefore all the data
is recovered - that you would not inherit the errors on the original when making a copy. I'm a bit of a novice you see, so I didn't know how this works. If there were no uncorrectable errors (red squares) on the old cd-rw, there shouldn't be any red or yellow squares - IF the Imation disc was a good one.

[Charlie]

"smh" <smhong@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41FCA9B0.AFCB3C12@mindspring.com... [SNIP] Check out the very old cd-rw with CD Speed and see if there are bad spots (red squares).

I'm just wondering - The original Ricoh CD-RW disc was written by my old
Ricoh drive........around about the time it just about started to die on me
(I was getting 'cyclic redundancy check' errors when moving data between CD
and hard disk, and 'bad block' errors in event viewer with this drive
regularly. Since I've changed the drive to the new Sony combo, none of this
happens). So, maybe this has something to do with it? I've just tested 4 of
the other new Imation discs that have all been written by my new Sony drive,
all perfect green squares in Nero. I guess the Ricoh CD-RW source disc, or
the old Ricoh drive is at fault here - as opposed to these Imation discs.
This is what my instincts are telling me anyway.

Regards.

[smh]

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

MisterChiversRegal wrote: - I used this Imation disc to copy the old Ricoh CD-RW that had fairly important stuff on - bar the report of red/yellow squares in Nero, all data is intact and it can still be read - I was just curious about the issue of whether the errors are inherited or not.

That's hard to say without knowing how Nero 5 and 6 write sectors with
(uncorrectable) errors. With Nero 4, there is a check box "On
errors...write uncorrected". This disappeared in Nero 5 and 6. (Nero 5
and 6 further differ in description of items of the read options.)
Complicating the issue, Nero Express 5 and 6 do not show at all what
these read options are. My guess is it will not write uncorrected (but
don't know what it writes in its place). Do the locations of red
squares match between the copy and original?
Check out the very old cd-rw with CD Speed and see if there are bad spots (red squares). Yes, there are a small percentage of red squares on it.

Do the locations of red squares match?
It's just that I thought even if there are errors on the original - but it's all read by the drive by re-reading/slowing down, therefore all the data is recovered - that you would not inherit the errors on the original when making a copy. I'm a bit of a novice you see, so I didn't know how this works. If there were no uncorrectable errors (red squares) on the old cd-rw, there shouldn't be any red or yellow squares - IF the Imation disc was a good one.

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

[smh]

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

MisterChiversRegal wrote: "smh" wrote: [SNIP] Check out the very old cd-rw with CD Speed and see if there are bad spots (red squares). I'm just wondering - The original Ricoh CD-RW disc was written by my old Ricoh drive........around about the time it just about started to die on me (I was getting 'cyclic redundancy check' errors when moving data between CD and hard disk, and 'bad block' errors in event viewer with this drive regularly. Since I've changed the drive to the new Sony combo, none of this happens). So, maybe this has something to do with it? I've just tested 4 of the other new Imation discs that have all been written by my new Sony drive, all perfect green squares in Nero. I guess the Ricoh CD-RW source disc, or the old Ricoh drive is at fault here - as opposed to these Imation discs. This is what my instincts are telling me anyway.

You have established that the Ricoh written cd-rw is bad. As I said in
the other post, without knowing what Nero Express 6 writes on errors --
search failed to turn up anything -- it's hard to say. But since you
had nothing but good burns with the Imations, Nero Express 6 must have
duplicated the errors. Again, do the locations of yellow and red
squares match?

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

[Charlie]

"smh" <smhong@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41FE7021.27AA310B@mindspring.com... . -------------------------------------- Mike Richter, were you born with "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face? -------------------------------------- MisterChiversRegal wrote: "smh" wrote: [SNIP] Check out the very old cd-rw with CD Speed and see if there are bad spots (red squares). I'm just wondering - The original Ricoh CD-RW disc was written by my old Ricoh drive........around about the time it just about started to die on
me (I was getting 'cyclic redundancy check' errors when moving data between
CD and hard disk, and 'bad block' errors in event viewer with this drive regularly. Since I've changed the drive to the new Sony combo, none of
this happens). So, maybe this has something to do with it? I've just tested 4
of the other new Imation discs that have all been written by my new Sony
drive, all perfect green squares in Nero. I guess the Ricoh CD-RW source disc,
or the old Ricoh drive is at fault here - as opposed to these Imation
discs. This is what my instincts are telling me anyway. You have established that the Ricoh written cd-rw is bad. As I said in the other post, without knowing what Nero Express 6 writes on errors -- search failed to turn up anything -- it's hard to say. But since you had nothing but good burns with the Imations, Nero Express 6 must have duplicated the errors. Again, do the locations of yellow and red squares match?

No, they don't match. It was something like 2.something red squares on the
Imation source media, and 20.07 (or something like it) yellow. I forget what
the tests were *exactly* on the original Ricoh disc - but I can
categorically state they were much lower. Very strange! Anyhow, no worries.
Cheers for your input.