CDRLabs.com

I wanted to confirm if the LiteOn burner LTR-48246S is better at DAE than the DVD LTD163. I've used EAC with the following settings:

Code: Select all

CD-RW:  secure
        caches: yes
        use C2: yes
        allow speed reduction

DVD:    secure
        caches: no
        use C2: no
        allow speed reduction

EAC says that the DVD is the "better" device for DAE- I suspect because it doesn't cache audio data- and I've used it in the past.

I've had some problems, though, and extracted one track (which caused problems with the DVD) 3 times with each drive and used EAC's "compare wave" option. The files generated by the CD-RW were all identical, but all files from the DVD differed from one another and from the CD-RW files. And the CD-RW was significantly faster to boot.

My conclusion is that the EAC recommendation is wrong and that the LTR-48246S is better at DAE.

Does anyone else have experience with this configuration? cfitz- you have a similar set up. Which drive do you use for DAE?

After preparing this post, I ran the CD-Speed quality check on the disc with both drives and the conclusion is really self-evident:
DVD (LTD163):

CD-RW (LTR-48246S):


Incidentally, KProbe showed C2=0, C1 max/ave = 7/0.37 for the disk (TDK/TY).

So much for the EAC recommendation I've followed for the last half year.

G

I would suspect that the 48246S would extract audio better. I would really think that because you mentioned that it always extracts each track the same way (when the DVD drive doesn't) and because it can read and correct C1 and C2 errors better.

MediumRare, I don't have exactly the same configuration as you since I have a 166S, not a 163. Also, I don't do much DAE, and when I do it is generally from very clean CDs that either drive reads just fine, even in burst mode. Therefore, I can't give you a specific recommendation other than to say stick with whatever works better for you rather than what some web site claims is theoretically better.

There are a number of reasons EAC support may say one drive is "better" at DAE than the 48246S, and some of those reasons may not apply to you and your setup. Here are a few I can think of:

1. A drive is better because it doesn't cache audio, making it easier (and paradoxically faster) to detect errors by reading the same data twice and looking for differences (data re-read from cache will never be different, since it is physically read just once).

2. A drive is better because it reports C2 errors more accurately (thus, you know when and where errors occur and can take action to correct them).

3. A drive is better because it generates fewer C2 errors when reading problematic discs.

I think that EAC support tends to concentrate on the first two criteria. However, this doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, and a drive could win on points 1 and 2, but still lose out to a drive that does better on point 3.

For example, postulate a problematic disc with many defects. Now, imagine drive A that easily and accurately detects C2 errors with guaranteed 100% accuracy (humor me, please). However, drive A can never manage to read the defective areas of the disc accurately. It knows with perfect certainty where the defects are, but it can't get the correct data.

Meanwhile, imagine drive B that completely falls on its face with respect to points 1 and 2 (let's say it doesn't report C2 errors at all), but due to its superior optics, carriage and servos manages to read that same problematic disc straight through the first and every time with no errors. If there were errors it would have no idea where they occurred or even that they occurred, but it can read without any errors (again, humor me while I take this to the extreme).

Given this scenario, which is the better drive for DAE? Drive A that can tell you exactly where the errors are but can't tell you correct values, or drive B that has no idea where the errors would be if there were any, but can read the disc without any errors?

A rhetorical question of course, but I hope it illustrates some of the difficulties in declaring something "best" (or even better).

In your case, the 163 wins on point 1, I don't know which wins on point 2, and it appears from your test results that the 48246S wins on point 3. Remember, though, that it is possible that although the 48246S is consistently returning the same data, it may be consistently returning the same wrong data. And keep in mind that perhaps your 163 would be the better drive if it were in tip-top shape, but may be having troubles due to age, dirt on the lens or in the mechanisms, etc.

You might try enabling the use of C2 pointers on the 163 and see if that makes any difference. I don't know how accurate the C2 reporting of the 163 is and, thus, whether or not this is recommended. Still, you might want to try just for kicks and to match your settings for the 48246S, even though I doubt it will help given the magnitude of the problems your 163 is experiencing.

Also, when comparing data extracted from different drives, you need to adjust the offsets or the data will never match correctly. I believe the 163 has an EAC offset of +594 and the 48246S of +6:

http://www.hilfe-stellung.de/eac/offset-l.htm

In the end, the results that you actually obtain with your actual drives are what really count. So don't feel that you are betraying EAC by using your 48246S instead of your 163. I say if it sounds good, it is good!

cfitz

Thank you for the well rounded exposition, cfitz. I'm sure it will help others in making a decision. As I mentioned, I will use the burner for all future DAE exercises.

The DVD was my only choice before I bought the LTR-48246S in Nov. and I stayed with it after EAC showed it as the preferred drive. I've had some problems with other (new!) CD's, but these showed up on both drives.

The settings I posted are the default settings from EAC. I won't bother doing any more experiments with the DVD- I've made my choice now.

I'm not bothered about the offset- I ignore the "repeated samples" at the start of tracks when comparing them.

G

You're welcome, MediumRare. How are physicists in Germany this summer? There seems to be less of you as well as less of me on the site lately (as the crowd cheers... )

cfitz

cfitz wrote:How are physicists in Germany this summer? There seems to be less of you as well as less of me on the site lately (as the crowd cheers... )

I'm trying to reduce my online time here- it's been interfering with life.

I looked here sporadically for over a year before registering. I've benefitted a fair bit from the information posted, and registered because I thought I could give something back. For instance, I don't think I would have bought a LiteOn drive without reading the experience of many users here- they were "just a cheap drive". I haven't regretted it. On the other hand, I have absolute no interest in engaging in a Plextor/LiteOn flamewar (it's absurd when 4 month old threads are resurrected).

My interest is mainly in things that affect me (who would've thunk that? ). And it doesn't hurt to present a European view here occasionally. So in addition to the odd special problem (like the one in this thread) this means media compatibility and quality of burns. That's why I jumped into the testing of KProbe. I guess Karr Wang is being kept very busy by his work, so things have slowed down there. And KProbe is a very useful tool as is, even with the odd remaining wart. If there's news there, I may get more active again. But I will (mostly) stay out of the beer garden (the forum- not the real ones here ).

After all it is summer and there are better things to do than sit at a keyboard. Our mean June temperature so far was >24° C, which is higher than the long term average in Tel Aviv!!!!! It's been the hottest June on record.

Today is headed for 30°, I'm on holidays and so I'll go for a hike in our hills and head off to the (physical) beer garden rather than the forum.

G

Blah...i'm sweating profusely
very hot here, and humid too (the sea is nearby)

today's temp in Tel Aviv: 28 centigrade (in the shade) according to the newspaper...not so hot by our standards...i'm sure it's hotter than that anyways.