jimshu1 welcome to our forums, what exactly the above link proves?

(in reply to jimshu1)

Just some ripping stats I found when looking for a new Toshiba DVD-ROM drive. Shows their latest TOSHIBA DVD-ROM SD-M1912. Good ripping quality, but not as fast as some.

Don't know what it proves, just thought I'd share as I haven't found a lot of info. on this drive.

(in reply to emperor)

www.cdrlabs.com have a review of Toshiba SD-M1912, check it, we are still waiting for our drive

(in reply to jimshu1)

Thanks! I found it:

http://www.cdrlabs.com/reviews/index.php?reviewid=244

(in reply to emperor)

HI,

i just checked the very good reviews upon the last BenQ1620A / Philips 1640P (same hardwares..).
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/159 (BenQ)
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/152
and of course the excellent (!!) CDRInfo ones too (confirming too) :
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10450 (BenQ)
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10686

a constant :
seems *very* good for audio extraction !
Especially :
- NO cache under EAC ==> very good!
especially for *SECURE MODE* (11.6x average!... the mode personnaly i always use..) ) => quicker than even a Plextor Premium apparently (and all Liteons too.. traditionnaly not bad for speeds too.. but having all, classic, "cache".. so slower under EAC..)! :) )... that are all at max average about 9x in SM... -already very good for secure mode..!) .
- absolutely fabulous for *copy protected* audio stuffs apparently!!.. may be always nice those days too...if want to rip something at all, very often now(!)
- The scratch CD read quality seems to be quiet good too, especially for burners(!!).. according to CDRInfo tests
On that point, though, i saw a review on cdrlabs, for the BenQ1620 that was more mitigate (to read scratched cds)... but cdrlabs "tests" were far less precise than CDRinfos's ones.. but : ?..


So... what do you think about those new burners BenQ1620/Philips1640 so?!


PS:
Toshiba dvd-rom are traditionnally *great* for DVD rips (and 1912 too apparently, yes.. :)) ), but NOT really at all for audios rips, no?! i have a 1612 for exemple.. a true wonder for DVD rips, yes, but *really* picky with CD AUDIo (very sensible to scratch)... not that speedy (at all :) ), AND totally bad for audio protections (like every dvd-rom traditionnaly though.. burners are far better against copy protections apparently..always(!) ). no?! nb; i always *love* my 1612 fr everything else though (noise, standards cd reads, dvd rips..).. but not especially audio so... apart on excellent sources of course -extractedf quality is then perfect too, ok, but... not for difficult audio rips so... and even here, not ultra speedy either so.. and from what i read, all the other Toshibas are more or less like that so... 1912 seems to do 27.6x under cdspeed dae (burst) test i saw somewhere (corrected! that was under the nice quick cdrlabs review given above -thx!!- 27.6x was for CD DAE test speed.. for CD SPEED was 24.41x... certainly an effect of the interesting EAC "no cache" too so -?... 1612 was 23x under CD Speed... and not above about average 5.5x under EAC secure mode.... ;)

(in reply to jimshu1)

Does anyone here have something to say about the audio ripping capabilities of the
LG GSA-4160b ? C'T apparently thought it did pretty clean DVD burns, and its
quality seems good all around. As for audio ripping, CDRLabs' tests looked good,
but they don't seem to be in alignment with what CDRInfo says about these
kinds of things.
http://www.cdrlabs.com/reviews/index.php?reviewid=248&page=Performance

the Lite-On SOHW-1633S did the best of most of the newer drives in the CDDAE
test, but does that test really indicate how well it will perform in real-world
CD-Ripping applications?

On the BenQ 1620A that Sunset2004 mentioned, CDRLabs determined using
a CDDAE test that the audio ripping quality was rather poor.

(in reply to Sunset2004)

I'll spill my guts on my current thinking on what I think makes a good DAE drive.

There are theoretically three levels of performance which all sum up to overall DAE performance:

- optical tracking performance: ability to read through scratched cds without loss of sync or increase in error rates (fixable or non-fixable). Just the ability to read analog signal off the disc in as pure form as possible AND to transform it into bits with highest accuracy (this last part goes beyond optical tracking, but it's part of the analog signal part manipulation).

- error correction performance: ability to fix longest burst errors when the optical tracking fails to pick up data off the disc in correct form. This is just chip level performance to handle incoming corrupted digital bitstream and to be able to : A) detect erroneous bits and B) fix them with 1:1 accuracy up to the highest possible length of consecutive erroneus bits.

- error concealment performance: ability to mask the loss of unfixable errors in an audio stream by the use of higher order polynomial extrapolation, so that the likelihood of hearing (perceptual measure) the loss of original audio signal is the smallest. This is a chip level performance of being able to mask errors that have been detected and confirmed to be unfixable and to do it in such a way that it is less noticeable to a human ear (i.e. it's not a technical measure as such, but a perceptual one).


LiteOns are excellent trackers. However, their error concealment is not amongst the best. LiteOns are also often very good in error correction.

BTC drives are really excellent error concealers, but not best in tracking and not best in error correction.

Philips / BenQ are often above average trackers, very good error correctors and I don't know yet about the concealment (haven't measured).


Unfortunately nobody currently tests DAE based on the above three criteria separately.

As such, it is impossible to pronounce a single "best DAE ripper", imho of course.

For practical purposes LiteOns seem to be very good and near the top, imho. It's just that I hope they were better in error concealment.

However, if you don't plan on ripping stuff that is really badly scratched (beyond the tracking/correction ability of all drives), then LiteOns are probably amongst the safest choices.

regards,
halcyon

PS The "LiteOn amongst top" is conjecture on my part. I haven't tested the latest batch of BenQ, AOpen, Plextor, etc in DAE quality to really say LiteOn is the best, but it's drives do consistently work at the top end of ripping ability (2 out of 3 DAE quality performance criteria).

(in reply to supacon)

Hmm... maybe somebody needs to start a website where a system for testing audio ripping capabilites is formally laid out, along with particular test media... like a standard method for creating scratched discs, or commercially available test CDs, and then people could test drives themselves and subit it to a central repository where the results could be tabulated and presented to the world.

(in reply to Halcyon)

www.exactaudiocopy.org - the section on DAE Quality describes a creation and test protocol, though results will also be dependent on the accuracy of test disk creation - if you have a drive capable of C1/C2 testing, I'd also suggest verifying that the undamaged burn has low C1 and no C2 errors, before applying the deliberate damage - a poor burn will make the readings worse, as a significant amount of error correction will already be required.

(in reply to supacon)

DAE Quality package is indeed very helpful.

Unfortunately, it has no real way of separating optical/error correction/error concealment capabilities (at least I can figure out how to do that). Also, a lack of a standardised test disc makes it impossible to compare between drives reviewed with different discs, as you noted.

Other than that, it is a really useful test, imho and I've used it myself. Pio2001 has extended the test methodology even further by statistically evaluating the c2 data extracted. This can be used to roughly evaluate the limits of error detection & correction in a drive (esp. burst error limits).

http://pageperso.aol.fr/lyonpio2001/dae/dae.htm

I wish I had more time to work on this. Pio is so much more knowledgeable on this issue than I am, so I hope he would have further interest in setting up a test methodology :)

(in reply to Matthew)

Wow, I found a page that is very interesting and I'm very surprised that nobody here has mentioned it:
http://www.cdspeed2000.com/go.php3?link=daeerrortest.php3

This is the CD DAE Top 10 Page. Very similar to what I just suggested!

Here's the Summary:

#	Brand/model		Quality Score	C2 Accuracy	
1	Toshiba SD-R1002		91.6			84.87%
2	Ricoh MP7200		90.2			85.00%
3	LiteOn LTR-32123S	90.2			99.99%
4	LiteOn LTR-48125W	88.3			99.99%
5	AOpen CRW4850		87.3			85.00%
6	Philips CDRWDVD3210	86.4			n/a
7	LiteOn LTD163		82.8			99.86%
8	CyberDrive CW099D	82.4			100.00%
9	Yamaha CRW3200		80.5			n/a
10	Yamaha CRW-F1		79.9			n/a

Take a look and comment!

(in reply to Halcyon)

supacon thanks for the list, even that is long outdated

(in reply to supacon)

Yes, I didn't realize how old some of these drives are, but many are way up there, aren't they?
The most recent one is the CyberDrive CW099D, AFAIK. But many of these are hard to
obtain, aren't they?

(in reply to emperor)

yeap i don't think are sold nowdays

(in reply to supacon)

I see the Liteon brand getting mentioned frequently here as a good ripper (with some limitations). Is it fair to assume that a low-end Liteon drive such as the LTN527 (CD ROM only) would be good for this purpose? I already have a PX-712A and don't want to pay for CDRW etc. if need be. Or is such a cheap drive as the LTN527 just not good ripping on scratched media?

Alexanderw

(in reply to emperor)