Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
1.
Thank you again for a lot of work.
I'm afraid there are still some basic misunderstandings in the article.
Namely:
1. Errors are NOT on the discs. They are the result of a reading process.
2. Readability is a function of the DISC + DRIVE doing the reading.
3. The way reading strategy is set in each different maker/model of drive is different
4. When you combine 1+2+3 you need to understand that scan results from one drive can be very misleading.
5. Mediatek chipset has bugs (scan spikes) + not all mediatek chipset based drives are consistent in their reporting (LiteOn dvd-rom drives being a good example)
6. If your aim is to measure / extrapolate GENERAL quality or OVERALL readability/compatibility of the burns (and from this perhaps deduce the quality of the discs of and/or the burns) you cannot measure with one reader alone AND especially one of the best (lowest error rates) readers out there: LiteOn 1693s!! You need to measure with more drives and ones that are not so good readers.
7. Statistical analysis of the results. I'm sure you are capable of doing averaging, variance and correlation analyses on the data you have. This would be preferably to summarise the results, imho.
These are very fundamental assumptions about how to test media or drives.
I know you are very skilled and hard working.
I hope to see you improve the test methodology for the next round of tests you do.
You can discuss these issues for example at www.cdrlabs.com dvd forums.
You'll get plenty of help if you are interested in asking questions.
I'm afraid there are still some basic misunderstandings in the article.
Namely:
1. Errors are NOT on the discs. They are the result of a reading process.
2. Readability is a function of the DISC + DRIVE doing the reading.
3. The way reading strategy is set in each different maker/model of drive is different
4. When you combine 1+2+3 you need to understand that scan results from one drive can be very misleading.
5. Mediatek chipset has bugs (scan spikes) + not all mediatek chipset based drives are consistent in their reporting (LiteOn dvd-rom drives being a good example)
6. If your aim is to measure / extrapolate GENERAL quality or OVERALL readability/compatibility of the burns (and from this perhaps deduce the quality of the discs of and/or the burns) you cannot measure with one reader alone AND especially one of the best (lowest error rates) readers out there: LiteOn 1693s!! You need to measure with more drives and ones that are not so good readers.
7. Statistical analysis of the results. I'm sure you are capable of doing averaging, variance and correlation analyses on the data you have. This would be preferably to summarise the results, imho.
These are very fundamental assumptions about how to test media or drives.
I know you are very skilled and hard working.
I hope to see you improve the test methodology for the next round of tests you do.
You can discuss these issues for example at www.cdrlabs.com dvd forums.
You'll get plenty of help if you are interested in asking questions.
[Posted by: halcyon 
| Date: 06/30/05 11:53:15 PM]
| Date: 06/30/05 11:53:15 PM]
