"There's absolutely no need to visually verify additional copies for anything other than correct digital data being written to the disc properly"

Right! So I say.... AGAIN...

Go and BUY yourself the PROPER program for the job instead of wishing DVDa would double as some kind of disk analyzer program... or hanging your hopes and dreams on a freeware program like Imageburn verifier that may or may not work as you seem to think.....

I can send you a trash disk that imageburn verifier PASSED if you wish.

One would THINK that if this is so important to you.... then you would actually treat it as such.

And ... this is the reason why i don't use DVDA for burning. I use Nero primarily because it does have the verification pass. True, it can mess up just like anything else can. But the chances of delivering a bad disc to the client are far far smaller when verifying.

Point proven. You're using a $70 consumer level off-the-shelf burner program. So in other words you can't REALLY be too serious about disk verifications

Let me ask you a question... who do you think is verifying Nero's verifier? Who is certifying this program as worthy?

Well, i have, for one.

In spot testing it has proven to be 100% accurate that when it says a disc is ok, the disc plays fine and when it says it was a bad burn the disc was a dud.

That's a few million times better than not knowing at all, wouldn't you say? DVDA doesn't even attempt to assist.

At least we've finally gotten you to admit the importance of verification and hopefully understand why we want it.

So how difficult, time consuming, expensive, etc., would it be for Sony to add verification to DVDA?

To my thinking, that would qualify as neither a bell nor a whistle, but something you would think would have been there from day one.

"That's a few million times better than not knowing at all, wouldn't you say? DVDA doesn't even attempt to assist."

Why should it?
It's a author/burner program.... not an analysis program

And I never said that verification wasn't important. What I said is that YOUR method of verification is a waste of time. Programs like Nero or Image Burn are not verification programs. They're author and/or burner programs with these little 'toys' attached to them. Nero has in fact gained the reputation as being 'bloatware' because of all these little extras.... half of which don't work properly in the first place.

If this is your idea of verification.... then what can I say? Obviously you don't look at it with too much of a high priority in the first place.

"So how difficult, time consuming, expensive, etc., would it be for Sony to add verification to DVDA?"

How difficult was to to add avchd editing to Vegas. The answer is frankly... quite difficult. Many claim that Vegas hasn't worked properly since.

Why add something that you can't really depend on in the first place..... Nobody has answered my question... who's certifying these 'verification' programs as trustworthy? I know that when I use Vegas pro for AC3 work I'm getting a Dolby certified encoder.... which is a lot more than I can say for Nero. Heck they make up their own "nero surround sound" logos.... and that tells you a lot.

I'll say it again... if this is so important to you then why don't you go out and BUY a trustworthy program that you KNOW does the job?

Do you even know what data verification is?
It's pretty simple stuff, you read the data back and compare it with what it was written from. Even Nero can manage that and no it is not a waste of time. Of all the programs I've used to burn media DVDA is the only one that does not offer data verification.

Bob.

"It's pretty simple stuff,"

I'm well aware of what data verification is all about Bob.

So if it's "pretty simple stuff" then you should be able to round up a verifier that's actually certified for the job.... correct? Why aren't you using it?

What's pretty simple is the idea that there are programs out there built to do specific jobs. If I want to edit... I use Vegas. If I want to type a letter then I use Word. If I want to burn/author I use DVDa. Now I know that Word handles graphics but would I not be better off using Photoshop???

If i want to PROPERLY analyze and verify a disk.... then I will use a disk analyzer program. Now where DOESN'T that make sense???

Or is it that accuracy has little to do with this and you just want the convenience of a cheap verifying program and it really doesn't matter if it's actually working?

Come on.... do you really want to cheapen DVDa with these little..... "nero toys"

verification or not, it is a PIA to use dvda to make multiple discs, thats why i dont use it to burn, not cause it makes coasters, it has too many steps to make the second , the thrird etc, Just as porpoise 1954 states,,,
you agree with that blink

"So if it's "pretty simple stuff" then you should be able to round up a verifier that's actually certified for the job.... correct? Why aren't you using it?"

Because I've got better things to spend $10K on. I can run basic analysis on optical media which I do for all CDA masters. For DVDs simple data verification is more than adequate. So long as the replication house can read the data, jitter analysis of their disks is their QA problem. If I wanted to I could drag out my CRO and read the jitter myself however that doesn't solve the problem of data verification.
That said I've never had a problem with a DVD due to excessive jitter, I have had a problem due to DVDA not verifying the data.
I have had major problems with DVDA not conforming to the specs, ones that SCS knew about and failed to warn their users of.

"Or is it that accuracy has little to do with this and you just want the convenience of a cheap verifying program and it really doesn't matter if it's actually working?"

What has accuracy got to do with this?
Jitter analysis does not improve data accuracy.
Data verification either works or it doesn't, there's no half measures involved.
A simple data verification will pickup certain errors.
Jitter analysis does not improve data accuracy.
If you want full verfication of a master's playability you need very deep pockets.

Bob.

"you agree with that blink"

I would agree with that. there's no reason why repeating a iso or disk copy operation should be more than a one or 2 click deal.

Blink, i think you're showing pretty well that you don't understand what we're after at all. We're not interested in analyzing the disc for the quality of the burn. We're certainly not interested in having an analysis program telling us if our menues are correct or if the colors look right.

We want one simple thing ... we want the burning software to do a check afterwards and compare byte-for-byte that what is on the disc is readable and is the same as the files on the hard drive that we wanted to write on the disc. That is verification, plain and simple, nothing more. There's no need to spend gobs of money on that. Just about every burning program *except* Vegas, DVDA, Sound Forge, ACID, and CDA have had this feature since their earliest versions. It's not a toy, it's not bloatware, it's a very basic and important part of disc burning.

And it's certainly not a waste of time. Nero can perform the burn and verification faster than DVDA does just the burn. But even that aside, how much time is wasted if we don't verify the disc, hand it to a client, and they tell us it was a dud? How much money, good faith, and business is lost that way? Isn't it worth having that cheap verification procedure in place to nearly eliminate the chances of that outcome?

Yeah, verification isn't perfect. But it's not expensive or worthless either. If it traps 99% of the dud burns from going out the door then it's saving me a lot of time, money, and headaches. I don't need an expensive program for that. Merely having the burning program read the disc afterwards is all we are asking for, and that's a very cheap thing and it should be cheap.

Oh, and don't blame Nero's bloat on that. The first version of Nero i used was version 3 and it had verification. Before that i used Adaptec's EZCD Creator version 2, and it had verification. I'm still using Nero 6 to avoid the bloat, and it has verification. So much for your bloat theory.