CDRLabs.com

dolphinius_rex wrote:As for the writing quality section... I *DO* have something planned for future reviews, which should please both yourself, as well as MediumRare. I won't promise it is going to be PxScan, but that is deffinately one of the options I'm persuing. I'm looking for one specific feature, which will make the viewing of my tests twice as useful, and 10x easier to display!!

At present there is a small issue with PxScan imho. In order to include beta/jitter test, the default speed is only 2X, even for PIE/PIF test. However, PIE/PIF profiles and values obtained at 12 and 8X are much closer to those reported by AudioDev CATS device, not to mention less time needed. Although each user may edit the bat files to suit his own purpose, not all people are confident in such practice. I shall ask Alexander Noé to do something about it.

Muchin wrote:

dolphinius_rex wrote:As for the writing quality section... I *DO* have something planned for future reviews, which should please both yourself, as well as MediumRare. I won't promise it is going to be PxScan, but that is deffinately one of the options I'm persuing. I'm looking for one specific feature, which will make the viewing of my tests twice as useful, and 10x easier to display!!

At present there is a small issue with PxScan imho. In order to include beta/jitter test, the default speed is only 2X, even for PIE/PIF test. However, PIE/PIF profiles and values obtained at 12 and 8X are much closer to those reported by AudioDev CATS device, not to mention less time needed. Although each user may edit the bat files to suit his own purpose, not all people are confident in such practice. I shall ask Alexander Noé to do something about it.

Well... the Beta scores done at 2x are VERY similar to the CATS scores, but the Jitter scores are never anywhere close. For PIE/PIF scores, I'll be doing my own tests against CATS/Datarius in a little bit of time I hope, but as I'm just coming back from vacation now, I have a massive amount of OTHER things to think about, so that's going on the back burner, along with another project or two I'm working on for later

dolphinius_rex wrote:

Muchin wrote:

dolphinius_rex wrote:As for the writing quality section... I *DO* have something planned for future reviews, which should please both yourself, as well as MediumRare. I won't promise it is going to be PxScan, but that is deffinately one of the options I'm persuing. I'm looking for one specific feature, which will make the viewing of my tests twice as useful, and 10x easier to display!!

At present there is a small issue with PxScan imho. In order to include beta/jitter test, the default speed is only 2X, even for PIE/PIF test. However, PIE/PIF profiles and values obtained at 12 and 8X are much closer to those reported by AudioDev CATS device, not to mention less time needed. Although each user may edit the bat files to suit his own purpose, not all people are confident in such practice. I shall ask Alexander Noé to do something about it.

Well... the Beta scores done at 2x are VERY similar to the CATS scores, but the Jitter scores are never anywhere close. For PIE/PIF scores, I'll be doing my own tests against CATS/Datarius in a little bit of time I hope, but as I'm just coming back from vacation now, I have a massive amount of OTHER things to think about, so that's going on the back burner, along with another project or two I'm working on for later

When you complete the comparison tests, are you going to disclose the results somewhere, perhaps together with those for Benq 1620 ? My information is from CDRInfo. The data for Benq 1620 were out-dated, as only earlier firmware versions were available then. Moreover, only 4 and 3 discs were used in the tests with Benq 1620 and with Plextor 712, respectively.

Well, I don't have an ETA for it just yet, but it's quite likely I'll be putting something online here when it's done

Basically, I have a LOT of stuff on my plate right now, but as soon as I get a few seconds, I'll begin work on it

Great, it will be most exciting reading. I believe that numerous people will be interested also. Do not work too hard to please us, though.

Very thorough media testing as usual Mr. Rex
Kudos on the quantity of work and time spent.
Interesting that your quality results differed so much from cdfreaks 4163B and 5163B reviews (even in Kprobe results and transfer rate tests).
I have to wonder if your specific 4163B unit was a little "less quality".

Wesociety wrote:I have to wonder if your specific 4163B unit was a little "less quality".

The unit I tested was not a hand picked unit sent in by LG, but a standard OEM unit as sold in most computer stores So maybe that's why my results were a little different.

Well Dolphinius Rex results were in line with ct' results. Only C't bashed it really hard.
So the sources with the most complete test results match and are not that nice for the drive as the competition.

However I won't rule out a huge difference in performance with the LG drive because of variances in the product quality. I have seen this to much with Lite On cd-r drives which acted differently on same batches of media. (Specially METALIZED AZO)

Hi all,

When I put in a Blank 'Verbatim DVD-R 8x' Disk in my LG 4163, the only available speed options for recording in Nero v6.6 are 8x & 4x ???

What happened to 2x ???

As is listed in this review:
--------------------------------
DVD-R Write Speeds
16x (P-CAV)
8x (Z-CLV)
4x, 2x (CLV)
--------------------------------


thnx

Why are you trying to burn 8x media at 2x? While the drive may be able to do 2x, that may be too slow for that particular media.

Most 8x DVDRs cannot be burned at 2x... and forcing them to burn at 2x will probably not result in a very good burn, even if it was possible.

does anyone know why this drive would not be mac compatible?
i'd love to get one to transfer files with my panasonic dvr and a powerbook.