CDRLabs.com

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/202/1

Comments?

Very good article, IMHO.

I wish they had been able to scan even more discs, but already those reaveal a lot.

The findings are pretty much the same that I had with my kprobe/Liteon + plextools/plextor vs CATS CD-R scanning study.

I also learned a lot about the physical read parameters that CATS dvd analyzer gives, by reading that article.

Also, the fact that authors again state (repeatedly) that digital errors are not on the disc, but in the reading is a Good Thing (TM) :)

I wish spath would have more time to participate in tests like these. His technical knowledge on the subject is so useful for doing test articles like these.

Good article
But they forgot that there is something called IUPAC defenitions.
Which I think is a mayor flaw. Why they try to explain it and make it clear for the users this fault does seem weird for the SCIENTIFIC WORLD.

Well, I'd say it was a good first attempt on their part. They've got a lot of guts putting an article together like that actually, and it's quite worthy of credit! I think their conclusions for each tested disc were a little weak, possibly they were trying to cater too much to noobies, which isn't a bad thing neccissarily, but I feel that many things that could, and possibly should have been said, were left out.

I have to say, this is the very first time I've ever seen something from CDFreaks that had to do with testing DVDs, that I thought the methods were well formed and thought out. I hope that this sort of effort is something we can expect to become the norm, not just with CDFreaks, but with all review sites

This is the sort of comparison I'd always hoped c't would do. I found it well written and understandable for starters.

I hope they do more in this line.

G

For me, I found it surprising to see how different the results were for the first few discs. The PC drives all reported about the same thing and the CATS was much higher. The graphs didn't even look the same.

I think CD Freaks hit the nail on the head with their comment about Correctness at the end.

Now when is someone going to compare the CATS machines from different manufacturers?

I think that DVD logo should not be given to totally "out of specification" blank media manufacturers.

Ian wrote:I think CD Freaks hit the nail on the head with their comment about Correctness at the end.

While I think that was a good part to include, I would personally argue that there CAN be a sense of "correctness" when you take into account what I call "Real World Results".

Put a little more simply. If the disc scans wonderfully, but refuses to be played back in any DVD player, or even the drive that scanned it, I would probably go so far as to say the scan is not very "correct". But this is my own personal inturpretation, and realistically is probably pushing the terminoligy a little far.

Ian wrote:Now when is someone going to compare the CATS machines from different manufacturers?

Not possible CATS is audiodev's system. See it like you want a Lite On
PX-712 drive.

You probally mean a test between different profesional analyzers.
From Datarius, AUdiodev and some other parties. ( There should be at least another japanese companny)

RJW wrote:You probally mean a test between different profesional analyzers.
From Datarius, AUdiodev and some other parties. ( There should be at least another japanese companny)

Yeah, that's what I meant. The name CATS seems to be used to for all analyzers... sort of like Rollerblade or Kleenex.

Ian wrote:

RJW wrote:You probally mean a test between different profesional analyzers.
From Datarius, AUdiodev and some other parties. ( There should be at least another japanese companny)

Yeah, that's what I meant. The name CATS seems to be used to for all analyzers... sort of like Rollerblade or Kleenex.

Geez, I always thought Rollerblade was a generic term! But I did know about the kleenex thing.