Q-Check has a maximum testing speed of 24x
dodecahedron wrote:the argument the "more people have Lite-On drives" - i still don't buy that as a valid reason to choose a Lite-On drive for testing over any other drive.
the graphic output of PlexTools Pro does seem more "professional" and pretty. in Ians words, more polished. IMO, this is definitely a valid consideration when choosing which util to use for testing, as this output is going to be displayed on the reviews. (and this, in my opinion, is definitely a much more important consideration than how many readers have a Lite-On or Plextor drive).
Ian wrote:Not sure if it tests every sector. As far as how it defines a C1/C2/CU error, here's essentially what the manual says:
C1 - error correction for the block error rate (BLER)
C2 - like KCK pointed out, this seems to be E22 only
CU - the errors that couldn't be corrected after C2
btw.. Q-Check has a maximum testing speed of 24x.
KCK wrote:Apparently even owners of PlexWriter Premium aren't sure what their C1/C2 counts mean:
KCK wrote:Well, a "natural" conclusion from this discussion is that we should run KProbe at most at 24x.
KCK wrote:It seems that dodecahedron may not be aware of the size of graphic files produced with Q-Check, although he suffers from a slow connection. It will be interesting to hear his reaction after perusing these links
yeah, we can agree to disagree.
cfitz wrote:I will object to calling prettiness "subjective".
KCK wrote:Still, note that for combined plots, KProbe can display a lot of info in just one picture, whereas Q-Check needs a second picture for maximum and average C1/C2/CU counts.
KCK wrote:And, of course, Karr Wang will hopefully provide jitter testing as well.
KCK wrote:Further, Q-Check aborts after the first reading/slipping error, whereas Karr Wang is still struggling to make KProbe go on.
Halc wrote:BTW, did that "new version of" CD Speed with C1/C2 testing get released already? Or is it upcoming?
cfitz wrote:In this situation there is no official standard test drive that can be used for C1/C2 testing (certainly not one that CDRLabs can afford). Lacking a readily available official standard, the next best thing is a de facto standard. Among the limited choices for test drives that can do C1/C2 testing, LiteOn drives are far and away closer to being a de facto standard, due to their overwhelming sales advantage.
cfitz wrote:KProbe allows the user to choose graph colors, select linear or logarithmic scales, combine or separate C1/C2 graphs, scale charts automatically or manually, label the graphs, save directly to png, bmp or jpg output files, etc., etc. I don't know if Q-Check allows any of that, but based on the screen shots Ian posted, it appears to be missing at least some of these features.
cfitz wrote:Finally, don't forget that the author of KProbe, Karr Wang, has shown a willingness to work with average users to improve KProbe. I don't know if Ian has tried contacting Karr, but I imagine there is a reasonable chance that Karr would be even more willing to work with Ian directly since Ian runs CDRLabs and has the status of being an authority in the field of CD-RW drive testing and reviewing.
cfitz wrote:Ian, is it really just the presentation of Q-Check that you prefer?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
|All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2016 CDRLabs Inc.|