Lets see how the latest LiteOn DVD-ROM drive performs when reporting PI/PIF error rate. We used Nero CD-DVD Speed v2.97beta. You cannot change the reading speed, all scans performed at max speed.

* Reference Scans





* Nero CD-DVD Speed Scan

#2nd Test Media

* Reference Scans





* Nero CD-DVD Speed Scan

(in reply to emperor)

#3rd Test Media

* Reference Scans





* Nero CD-DVD Speed Scan

(in reply to emperor)

#4th Test Media (Double Layer)

* Reference Scans





* Nero CD-DVD Speed Scan

(in reply to emperor)

wow.... that's DISTURBINGLY accurate with the exception of that one MCC scan.... any idea what's up with that?

(in reply to emperor)

Where can I get a copy of Nero CD-DVD Speed 2.97 Beta? Would someone be kind enough to email it to me?

(in reply to Dolphinius_Rex)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dolphinius_Rex
wow.... that's DISTURBINGLY accurate with the exception of that one MCC scan.... any idea what's up with that?

The problem is that even with quality burns the 167T again reports high amount of PI error rate, not so sure if the problem is that the media is DVD-R, we have to investigate this with much more media...

(in reply to Dolphinius_Rex)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MP3Mogul
Where can I get a copy of Nero CD-DVD Speed 2.97 Beta? Would someone be kind enough to email it to me?

Should arrive soon

(in reply to MP3Mogul)

It'd be interesting to compare raw graphs from a DVD Pro unit, which offers higher sample point accuracy (smaller sample interval).

It could be that the smoothing is one part why the peaks differ (after scale adjustment).

However, what's more interesting is that it looks like the CATS analyzer produces an overall level of errors that is lower than that of a LiteOn drive. The difference isn't great, but if these samples can be generalized, it is still there.

Often consumer drives are very good at reading off-spec discs (LiteOn/Plextor cd-rw drives can top CATS CD analyzers and produce less causal errors).

It looks like consumer dvd drives still have a bit of way to go, in order to improve their reading reliability and accuracy.

regards,
halcyon

(in reply to emperor)

Halc, what is the DVDPro Unit, you mean CATS analyzer?

(in reply to Halc)

Yes, DVD Pro is one of the CATS analyzers. But you already explained elsewhere how the CATS scans in these test are done (to save time). You probably don't get raw graphs for the whole disc, just the numbers from the sample points show on these graphs.

(in reply to emperor)

Thank you Emperor, I have received it!

(in reply to Halc)

MP3Mogul there is a newer one, 2.97.5 you want it?

(in reply to MP3Mogul)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halc
Yes, DVD Pro is one of the CATS analyzers. But you already explained elsewhere how the CATS scans in these test are done (to save time). You probably don't get raw graphs for the whole disc, just the numbers from the sample points show on these graphs.

Yes there will be no raw data, actually CATS measure area as a single point, so doing a full scan has no meaning for our graphs, you have to split the whole area at many pieces to get many points connecting the lines...

(in reply to Halc)

Ah, I was under a different (wrong?) impression.

If you look at the following example chart from Audiodev's pages (it shows an example results of a DVD scan):

http://www.audiodev.com/default.asp?GROUPID=200336141121681

It shows a finer scanning interval accuracy than the results you show. That is why I was intrigued why this was so and I mistakenly thought it was due to a different scanning drive/software.

But apparently it's a setting defined by the scanning operator who can define less scanning points to speed up the scanning process?

Thanks again for all the clarifications and feedback, I'm learning a lot from your efforts!

best regards,
halcyon

(in reply to emperor)

Yes the operator can do whatever he wants, can define the measuring area, etc...Our method is what everyone use for their daily scans...

(in reply to Halc)