Hi CDRInfo,

For my first post in this forum, I would like to ask the important question of the conditions of explicit Read Transfert Rate tests. I mean the specific features that a drive must have to perform such a test with the best revelance for DVD writing quality. As it is a "stress test", I do know that reading speeds must be as fast as possible but the real question here concerns the reading capability of the drive used .

For those who want to test drives writing quality and burned media compatibility. It seems obvious, IMO,  that the drive used for TRT tests must not be a real good reader. On one hand, if the drive has a good error correction and succeed in reading everything ,  It can't be enough sensitive to show, with a RTR test, the real way a disc has been burned, it will show only the big problems, I mean real failure as POF or very high PI values. It is one thing, but is it enough ? On the other hand, if the drive is too picky and too sensitive, will the RTR test be revelant in term of burned media compatibility ?

So here's the questions :

1) How "bad" must a drive be so that RTR test can be considered as revelant ?

In CDRInfo reviews we can see :

quote:

The LiteON SOHD-167T with patched firmware being able to read DVD5 up to 16X CAV and DVD9 up to 10X CAV. For the transfer rate tests we used the latest Nero CDSpeed version.

2) Why this drive particularly ?
3) What about BenQ drives (BenQ DW1640/1650/1655) for this kind of test ?

Thanks.

Hi friend! Even i don't know what CDRinfo actually uses for testing I think i will try to answer some of your questions

In general there isn't a specific way to test the burning quality of a media. Yes there are several ways like measuring POF/PIF/Jitter or reading discs at high speed (with patched firmware to allow 16X) with DVD-ROMs that may show some problems. As far I have understood, CDRInfo uses a mixed methodology:

1) POF/PIF/Jitter error levels with normal drives (Plextor)
2) Reading back discs at high speed, expecting a perfect reading curve that show good readbility with specific drives

That methodology has its advantages and weeknesses. Using another combination of readers and error levels may show different results. But, as most users have concluded, Plextor drives are good for reporting POF/PIF error levels.

On the other hand, BenQ drives may offer POF/PIF/Jitter functionality but their results are not comparable (tred line) with AudioDev SA300 Professional testers. Of course it would be ideal if CDRInfo could test POF/PIF/Jitter with: Plextor, BenQ, Liteon, but this would take ages, since more than 30 discs are burned for each test (more or less from what I have counted).

So there has to be a balance between "perfection" and "reality"....

(in reply to Slywall)

Hi and thanks for reply alexmacris

quote:

ORIGINAL: alexmacris
there are several ways like measuring POF/PIF/Jitter or reading...

Yes, I do know that

quote:

Reading back discs at high speed, expecting a perfect reading curve that show good readbility with specific drives

That's the point ! I just want to talk about RTR test here. As I said if the drive has a good error correction and succeed in reading everything, it's not very hard to get a perfect reading curve and thus the test doesn't really tell us about overall readability of the disc or writing quality.

I know BenQ drives (because of their natural reading speeds and sensitivity) are often used in reviews for Transfert Rates, CDRInfo uses the Lite-On I mentionned above. I wanted to know more about this choice and if I am right when I think that, in a review, a RTR test have to :
1) coroborate PIE/PIF scans
2) give an idea of overall readability of the disc in most players

And eventually ask if there was other drives that could fulfil that job.

(in reply to alexmacris)

Just to be informed of the discussion ...

(in reply to Slywall)

Hi friend! As i said earlier, there could be more drives that could be used for testing, but you have to keep some kind of reference levels for future reviews. I think that cdrinfo evaluates and updates its testing methodology according to the newest trends and affordable professional solutions.

(in reply to franz99)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alexmacris
But, as most users have concluded, Plextor drives are good for reporting POF/PIF error levels.
On the other hand, BenQ drives may offer POF/PIF/Jitter functionality but their results are not comparable (trend line) with AudioDev SA300 Professional testers.



As i said earlier, there could be more drives that could be used for testing, but you have to keep some kind of reference levels for future reviews

These are 2 very important arguments to me:
1°) In each review of a Plextor burner, CDRinfo compares the way Plextor drives report errors compared to the AudioDev SA300

2°) They keep on using
- the same Plextor drive for all the recents reviews
- the same Lite-on 167T with patched firmware for RTR (read tranfert rate) tests


I hope that Minos and Emperor are going to give their opinion here too ..!

(in reply to alexmacris)

Hi,

quote:

ORIGINAL: alexmacris

I think that cdrinfo evaluates and updates its testing methodology according to the newest trends and affordable professional solutions.

I don't have doubts about it, that's why I asked these questions on this board.

quote:

ORIGINAL : Franz99
2°) They keep on using
- the same Plextor drive for all the recents reviews
- the same Lite-on 167T with patched firmware for RTR (read tranfert rate) tests

Hi  franz99 ,  first the fact they keep on using these same drives in all recent reviews is justified by their ntention to make all these reviews homogeneous, so that we can compare results in the best way, it is obvious. But the second reason, I mean, the choice of the drives is the point I'd like to be discussed here.

For PI tests, We know that a reliable scanner must be as near as CATS machines as possible but for RTR, I'd really like to know the ins and outs of CDR Info's choice. Why sticking to the 167T particularly ?

(in reply to alexmacris)

quote:

ORIGINAL: franz99
1°) In each review of a Plextor burner, CDRinfo compares the way Plextor drives report errors compared to the AudioDev SA300

Not true, they compare the way the tested drive, if reports PI/PIF/Jitter can correspond to what AudioDev SA300
system reports for the same discs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: franz99
2°) They keep on using
- the same Plextor drive for all the recents reviews
- the same Lite-on 167T with patched firmware for RTR (read tranfert rate) tests

Do you have any objections with this? I mean, a proper testing methodology doesn't change everyday,especially when you have a load of reviews on the pipeline. Probably something will change at the near future, since new drives have been released and the old ones keep breaking down.

(in reply to franz99)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slywall
Why sticking to the 167T particularly ?

Well for a number of reasons, i think it allows up to 16X reading of +/-R media, its a drive that everyone can buy and make their own tests, it has a good reputation among users for its reability. As i mentioned, newer drives may be better but when you are doing this with a rythm, its hard to change something at the methodology...

(in reply to Slywall)