I agree with MediumRare - I can't keep up!
But in this case that is a happy thing.
First of all, since it now appears to be confirmed that Mr. Wang or someone else associated with the develop is in fact monitoring this thread (who would have thunk it?
), let me again express my gratitude for making this great tool available to us and for responding to our feedback. And you've done it in such a quick and timely manner. I'm very impressed by both your creation and the diligence with which you are updating it. Kudos!
Also, a special thanks to Abacus for keeping us updated about all the new changes and bringing this to our attention in the first place. You aren't Mr. Wang himself, are you?
Now, let me try to respond to some comments included here:
jsl wrote:Do you think the PI/PO tests are reliable on a Lite-On DVD-ROM or are they only made for Lite-On's coming DVD writer?
I probably shouldn't comment, since I've not studied DVD technology extensively, but based on the test I performed on my 166S (see earlier post in this thread here
), it appears to be returning realistic results. I can't guarantee that they are accurate, but they seem to be reasonable. This is in contrast to the C1 test results I obtained when testing a CD-R in the 166S, which I don't believe are reasonable.
Dartman wrote:It also now apears that the 166s has the cleanest error correction of all my Lite ons. It is higher at the begining but still very low then just reads most of the way through with no errors pretty much after that
idiot wrote:BTW, is this a bug of something???? The readings are too low compared to calibrated Expert machines... "
As mentioned above, I don't believe that the DVD-ROM drives are returning accurate results for C1 error rates. I also have found the reported rates to be far below what I feel is realistic and also below the results I get when testing with my LTR-48246S. I realize that the drive being used to read the CD influences the read error rates, but the difference is just too large, in my opinion, to be explained by any superior reading capabilities of the DVD-ROM drives. Also, the results I get with my 166S are not consistent from run to run, unlike the results I get with my LTR-48246S. So, for now I personally am not trusting C1 results from DVD-ROM drives. Perhaps since the DVD-ROM division morphed into JLMS, the LiteOn IT guys that make the CD-RW drives aren't as friendly to DVD-ROM drives...
rdgrimes wrote:Since we seem to be getting everything we ask for here: Can I have a couple of new drives?
You are setting your sights too low, rdgrimes. I want health, happiness, and world peace!
EddieKM wrote:Since it is under development, I hope it can offer jitter test in the next release.
idiot wrote:Can we ask for ... Land/Pit Jitter testing perhaps??
I’ve not seen any software that can do jitter testing with consumer drives, and as far as I know jitter testing can not be performed without specialized equipment, so I don't think you will be seeing this. But I would happily be proven wrong.
idiot wrote:Another thing to ask is adding Log scales for those discs which do not perform well.....
That's already in there. Click the configuration button:
idiot wrote:Also, I3, I11, crosstalk, and E11, E12, , E13, E21, E22, E23 rather than C1/C2 would be even more helpful....
You are liable to cause Mr. Wang an aneurism...
(By the way, they are E11, E21, E31 and E12, E22, E32).
This does bring up a point, though. We have questioned in the past the exact meaning of C1 and C2 in WSES and CD Doctor, but have not resolved the issue. Presumably C1 = E11 + E21 + E31, measured in errors per second. That seems to be fairly well agreed upon. More in question is C2. Does C2 displayed in K's probe = E12 + E22 + E32, or does C2 = E12 + E22, or does C2 = E32, or something else? If C2 is only counting errors correctable at the C2 level of error correction (e.g. C2 = E12 + E22), would it be possible, Mr. Wang, to add a display of uncorrectable errors as well? (Here is where spath steps up and rips into me. But that's okay - I have made peace with my fate.
MediumRare wrote:I guess BMP is the universal graphic format and so is first choice. JPGs are a nice alternative, but PNG are better suited for line diagrams such as are created here- they would be smaller and lossless.
I agree. I appreciate the new JPEG option. JPEG does result in smaller file sizes. However, since JPEG is better suited to photographic images and uses lossy compression, for line diagrams such as these it creates larger and fuzzier images than PNG would. I suspect PNG would knock down the new JPG images from ~80KiBytes to ~4KiBytes, and the images would be completely sharp and clear. And PNG is open source and patent free.
Now, let me try to help a little rather than just make requests. Here is the PNG home page:
Here is the official PNG reference library (ANSI C):
And here is a list of other libraries and toolkits that support PNG:
Okay, that's enough for now. I'm looking forward to what comes next!