New DVD media performance review at Xbit Labs

[Halc]

Just starting to read it:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storag ... rners.html

Just FYI.

My quick observations:

- still only one drive (and LiteOn at that) doing the scanning
- still think that errors are on the disc (ref. page 3)
+ scans twice on the same disc / same reader (I think they thought two programs make it more trustworthy, when it's in fact two test runs that make it more trustworthy).

Also, I'm a bit disappointed with things like these still doing the rounds:

"In case you don’t know or have forgotten, the scanning of the surface of a disc can be done without problems in drives on MediaTek chipsets."

When in fact Mediatek chipset has some bugs in it, Mediatek dvd-rom drives can be downright unreliable and LiteOn drives are known to produce misleadingly low scan results (when the aim is to consider OVERALL compatibility and not just compatibility in that LiteOn drive).

rgds,
halc

[RJW]

.

There are also some nice quotes I gathered, like:

"In case you don’t know or have forgotten, the scanning of the surface of a disc can be done without problems in drives on MediaTek chipsets."

Sorry but that one was to funny.

[Halc]

Yup, although I put part of it (the surface part) down to more linguistic than conceptual challenges, although it's probably both.

I wonder if we the readers should provide them more links, as the suggestions given after the previous tests have not been fully incorporated, regardless of what they say.

[Ian]

+ scans twice on the same disc / same reader (I think they thought two programs make it more trustworthy, when it's in fact two test runs that make it more trustworthy).

As far as I know, both programs use the same Mediatek API's. The results are going to be very similar, no matter what you do. They would have been better off using their PX-712A on the second test run.

[RJW]

Ohhwell now we can at least see if the mediatek chipset based drive they use report something that is reproductable which is something my Pioneer 106D doesn't seem to be cappable of.
Pioneer 106D -Great burner, good reader but useless tester !

[Halc]

As far as I know, both programs use the same Mediatek API's. The results are going to be very similar, no matter what you do. They would have been better off using their PX-712A on the second test run.

Of course, Ian.

I fully agree. That's exactly what I meant.

However, the variance from scan-to-scan is a real factor - even though it's less so on LiteOn 1693s.

But several scans on same drive is better than one scan on one drive.

Of course, several scans on several drives would have been better, I completely agree on that.

[RJW]

Well in so far I agree that you first need to know if your unit can be used as a tester. If it reports to different results(my pioneer 106D) for each scan then give up or get another unit.
If it proofed to report consistant then you can start testing and add more cosistant units a long the way.

[Halc]

Again, fully agreed. This is what I do myself.