Aopen 1648/AAP discussion

*chas0039* · 19-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdu

Hi Erik
Thanx for the explanation.

Can this be changed? I mean, is it possible for the AOpen to collect data for 1 ECC block instead of 32 ECC blocks? If not, I guess we have to adjust our reference once and for all and forget about comparing with K's Probe scans. Unless ...

Could you implement a checkbox/switch that will adjust the results by dividing PI by 4 and PIF by 32? Wouldn't this be an easy/awesome way to make the scans comparable after all?

Cheers,
Peter

If this were the case then the scan would simply be a higher proportion of the Liteon scan and the graph would follow the same shape, just higher. This is not the case. Also the initial error rate when the drive is at a low speed is not a 4 time multiple of the correct error rate but is closer to 10 to 15 times the correct PI error. While it may change and become true when the speed is reduced I will need to see it before I accept it. So far it is theory, logical, but not observable with the data. As for Liteon ROM drives, I have seen errors that are too low and errors that are too high. Maybe it will not be the case with the AOpen but so far it does not look promising to me.

kieronishere · 20-09-2004

Still waiting for my 1648/aap to arrive. I have however just found a slightly worrying issue with this drive according to threads on the aopen forum: http://club.aopen.com.tw/forum/viewforum.asp?forumID=21
Lots of people are saying that the drive has trouble reading DVD-R's. Can any of you who have this drive shed any light on this? Do you think it could be due to poor quality burns being used by these people?

*easy-going-man* · 20-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by kieronishere

Still waiting for my 1648/aap to arrive. I have however just found a slightly worrying issue with this drive according to threads on the aopen forum: http://club.aopen.com.tw/forum/viewforum.asp?forumID=21
Lots of people are saying that the drive has trouble reading DVD-R's. Can any of you who have this drive shed any light on this? Do you think it could be due to poor quality burns being used by these people?

I can partly confirm this: My "el cheapo" fake Maxell discs (MXL-RG01) were readable in my Toshiba SD-M 1612 DVD-Rom. Some of these discs cause unrecoverable read errors after 3GB - and sometimes after 3.9 GB in the AOpen drive. The video playback stutters a bit.

You have to consider that these media are really of a very low quality. Any other medium works very well in this drive (even Princo 4x DVD-Rs work!) - and the performance is superior.

So if you don't use the cheapest DVDs, you should not have any problems.

*pdu* · 20-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy-going-man

So if you don't use the cheapest DVDs, you should not have any problems.

And stay away from LiteOn DVD recorders when burning DVD-R

*Corbus* · 20-09-2004

Wow the -R problem can be decisive; I have quite a few cheap DVD-R discs, and I don't want to risc a no read on this DVD-ROM. How can it be the best dvdrom on the market today with such flaw? I guess I'll postpone the order of this drive, maybe till new firmware arise...

kieronishere · 20-09-2004

Got mine, waiting for me when I got home this evening. No problem reading both cheapish and better DVD-R's I've burnt with my LG 4040 @4X. In fact it will read a disk that no other previous reader I tried would (apart from my Panasonic DVD-S75 standalone player).

Attached are two disk quality tests, one of a burn I knew was not so good (cheapish media), one I knew was better (RITEK G04). You can clearly see the difference.

*chas0039* · 21-09-2004

Since I have another burner that reads anything I don't worry about non readable -Rs. I have noticed it won't read stuff burned on my stand-alone Panasonic E-50.

kieronishere · 21-09-2004

same burns as above - sorry being a bit thick about how to attach images!

*pdu* · 21-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by kieronishere

same burns as above - sorry being a bit thick about how to attach images!

According to Erik Deppe PI errors can be up to 4 times higher and PI failures can be up to 32 times higher than a K's Probe scan. So after applying the math the results are

Scan1
PI avg = 71,5
PIF avg = 0,09

Scan2
PI avg = 35,75
PIF avg = 0,02

Cheers,
Peter

drno_1 · 21-09-2004

This is the kind of drive specs I have been looking for in a reader. Thanks to all for the information. Best site/price to order from?

Thanks

*chas0039* · 22-09-2004

http://www.newegg.com/app/SearchProd...bmit=Go&DEPA=1

kieronishere · 22-09-2004

As has been mentioned above the drive reports errors on 32 ECC blocks and not the normal 8 of other drives (as is normally used in Kprobe scans). So PI errors and PI failures are upto 4 and 32 times higher than they would otherwise be. I was wondering whether Erik could say whether the quality score takes this into account in it's calculations. I seem to be getting what seem like very good scans but with quality scores as low as 10 or 20, even on pressed disks.

*easy-going-man* · 22-09-2004

@Kieronishere: According to your scans, your firmware is still 1.05. This version is outdated. I advise you to download the latest firmware release on the Dangerous Brothers' website:

http://tdb.rpc1.org

*packetloss* · 22-09-2004

TDB host a 'hacked' RPC I (region free) version of the newest 1.07 firmware (I have flashed my drive with it, works fine). If you don't want to use hacked firmware, you can download the official firmware here.

*ErikDeppe* · 23-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdu

Hi Erik
Thanx for the explanation.

Can this be changed? I mean, is it possible for the AOpen to collect data for 1 ECC block instead of 32 ECC blocks? If not, I guess we have to adjust our reference once and for all and forget about comparing with K's Probe scans. Unless ...

Most drives use a scanning resolution of 8 ECC, 32 ECC or 42 ECC blocks.
Only LiteOn DVD burners and a few other Mediatek-based drives use a sampling interval of 1 ECC.
I think it's unlikely that manufacturers will change the sampling interval of their drives just to make them comparable with LiteOn DVD burners because scanning at 1 ECC introduces several problems.

The author of KProbe has explained this in this message:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread....342#post583342

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdu

Could you implement a checkbox/switch that will adjust the results by dividing PI by 4 and PIF by 32? Wouldn't this be an easy/awesome way to make the scans comparable after all?

The problem is that you would get the average values while you need the maximum values. So the values would be much too low.

*ErikDeppe* · 23-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by kieronishere

As has been mentioned above the drive reports errors on 32 ECC blocks and not the normal 8 of other drives (as is normally used in Kprobe scans). So PI errors and PI failures are upto 4 and 32 times higher than they would otherwise be. I was wondering whether Erik could say whether the quality score takes this into account in it's calculations. I seem to be getting what seem like very good scans but with quality scores as low as 10 or 20, even on pressed disks.

No, CD-DVD Speed doesn't do this yet so the scores at 32 ECC are indeed too low.
But this will be fixed in the next version

kieronishere · 23-09-2004

Thanks Erik
BTW I've flashed to 1.07 now - just hadn't had a chance to get round to it yet!

*pdu* · 23-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Deppe

The problem is that you would get the average values while you need the maximum values. So the values would be much too low

Hm, not sure I understand this. If the PI values are 4 times higher and the PIF values are 32 times higher compared to the same disc scanned in K's Probe how can dividing PI and PIF by 4 and 32 give results that are too low? Excuse me if being thick-headed but I have had a hard day at work

*lgkahn* · 24-09-2004

I think he means the scores are coming out low the the quality score on the disk is not taking into account the 32 ecc setting and alwayes reads 0 even on good quality disks and this is what needs to be fixed on the next version.. I belive this keys off of the total errors found no max or average and these are higher becase of the block size...

*lgkahn* · 24-09-2004

Also still have the hanging problem on scanning an unreadeable disk.. need to reboot the os... any idea on a firmware update or a cd speed workaround.. royal pain in the ass....

thanks...

kieronishere · 24-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by lgkahn

Also still have the hanging problem on scanning an unreadeable disk.. need to reboot the os... any idea on a firmware update or a cd speed workaround.. royal pain in the ass....

I've had that problem twice as well

kieronishere · 24-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikDeppe

The problem is that you would get the average values while you need the maximum values. So the values would be much too low.

I think this is the issue:

Consider part of a disk with 32 ECC blocks, four lots of 8 blocks. If these 32 blocks had PI failures of, say, 10, 12, 50, and 18 for each set of 8 blocks then a scan with a drive which scans at a resolution of 8 ECC blocks would return PIF of 10, 12, 50, and 18 for those four sets of 8 blocks. According to the no more han 4 PIF's per 1 ECC block standard, we would interpret the 50 as a fail as it is above this (8x4=32) standard. However as the aopen 1648 scans at 32ECC block level it would report (10+12+50+18=90) PIF's for this set of 32 ECC blocks which is below the (32ECCx4=128) standard and we would interpret as a pass. Dividing by 4 gives 90/4=23 which is again a pass against the 32 standard. I think this is what Erik means by dividing by 4 being equivalent to averaging and thus hiding a maximum and giving a lower value than is necessarily true.
Have I got this correct Erik?

*packetloss* · 24-09-2004

Erik, I think the reason for the very high error rates at the beginning of the disc quality scan (even in a lot of 8x scans) is that the drive scans in CAV mode, instead of CLV. I don't know if the drive is actually able to read discs in CLV mode though, and if CLV could be added by Aopen via firmware (4x CLV mode for disc quality scanning would be ideal).

And as far as the 32 ECC blocks issue is concerned, it would be nice indeed to have comparable results. However, one should take the numbers with a grain of salt in both cases, Aopen 1648 / AAP and LiteOn, because both are inaccurate. More important than the numbers are the curves, and reducing the drive's influence on them.

Des Flurane · 25-09-2004

Thanks packetloss

I've just bought 2 of these puppies, one for me, one for the kids.
Reads discs my NEC2500 could not.
Thanks again.
Des.
One question though, in Neroinfo it shows that the drive will not read DVD+r DL, I haven't any of this media atm but will this be upgraded in a future firmware flash. BTW I have flashed to 1.07.

*easy-going-man* · 25-09-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Des Flurane

Thanks packetloss

I've just bought 2 of these puppies, one for me, one for the kids.
Reads discs my NEC2500 could not.
Thanks again.
Des.
One question though, in Neroinfo it shows that the drive will not read DVD+r DL, I haven't any of this media atm but will this be upgraded in a future firmware flash. BTW I have flashed to 1.07.

You should not have any problems with DVD+R DL when the booktype of these discs is DVD-Rom. I don't know if it reads DVD+R DL with DVD+R DL booktype.

However, since almost all writers set the booktype to DVD-Rom automatically, it should not be a problem at all.

20-09-2004	#152
kieronishere CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 32	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion Still waiting for my 1648/aap to arrive. I have however just found a slightly worrying issue with this drive according to threads on the aopen forum: http://club.aopen.com.tw/forum/viewforum.asp?forumID=21 Lots of people are saying that the drive has trouble reading DVD-R's. Can any of you who have this drive shed any light on this? Do you think it could be due to poor quality burns being used by these people?

20-09-2004	#155
Corbus CDFreaks Resident Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 723	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion Wow the -R problem can be decisive; I have quite a few cheap DVD-R discs, and I don't want to risc a no read on this DVD-ROM. How can it be the best dvdrom on the market today with such flaw? I guess I'll postpone the order of this drive, maybe till new firmware arise... __________________ Burning on Benq 1655, Plextor 760A Previous burners: Plextor 712, 755, Pioneer 107,8,9,10,11, LG 4080,4163,H10,H22, NEC 1100,2550,3520, Sony DWQ120, AWG170A, LiteOn 165p6s + 18A1H and a slim AOpen 8424

21-09-2004	#157
chas0039 MyCE Resident Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Lost in America Posts: 7,123	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion Since I have another burner that reads anything I don't worry about non readable -Rs. I have noticed it won't read stuff burned on my stand-alone Panasonic E-50. __________________ Still a few bugs in the system...

21-09-2004	#160
drno_1 CD Freaks Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 84	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion This is the kind of drive specs I have been looking for in a reader. Thanks to all for the information. Best site/price to order from? Thanks

22-09-2004	#161
chas0039 MyCE Resident Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Lost in America Posts: 7,123	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion http://www.newegg.com/app/SearchProd...bmit=Go&DEPA=1 __________________ Still a few bugs in the system...

22-09-2004	#162
kieronishere CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 32	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion As has been mentioned above the drive reports errors on 32 ECC blocks and not the normal 8 of other drives (as is normally used in Kprobe scans). So PI errors and PI failures are upto 4 and 32 times higher than they would otherwise be. I was wondering whether Erik could say whether the quality score takes this into account in it's calculations. I seem to be getting what seem like very good scans but with quality scores as low as 10 or 20, even on pressed disks.

22-09-2004	#163
easy-going-man MyCE Resident Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 653	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion @Kieronishere: According to your scans, your firmware is still 1.05. This version is outdated. I advise you to download the latest firmware release on the Dangerous Brothers' website: http://tdb.rpc1.org

22-09-2004	#164
packetloss CDFreaks Resident Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 1,422	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion TDB host a 'hacked' RPC I (region free) version of the newest 1.07 firmware (I have flashed my drive with it, works fine). If you don't want to use hacked firmware, you can download the official firmware here.

23-09-2004	#167
kieronishere CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 32	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion Thanks Erik BTW I've flashed to 1.07 now - just hadn't had a chance to get round to it yet!

24-09-2004	#169
lgkahn CDFreaks Resident Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Londonderry, NH Posts: 535	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion I think he means the scores are coming out low the the quality score on the disk is not taking into account the 32 ecc setting and alwayes reads 0 even on good quality disks and this is what needs to be fixed on the next version.. I belive this keys off of the total errors found no max or average and these are higher becase of the block size...

24-09-2004	#170
lgkahn CDFreaks Resident Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Londonderry, NH Posts: 535	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion Also still have the hanging problem on scanning an unreadeable disk.. need to reboot the os... any idea on a firmware update or a cd speed workaround.. royal pain in the ass.... thanks...

24-09-2004	#173
packetloss CDFreaks Resident Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 1,422	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion Erik, I think the reason for the very high error rates at the beginning of the disc quality scan (even in a lot of 8x scans) is that the drive scans in CAV mode, instead of CLV. I don't know if the drive is actually able to read discs in CLV mode though, and if CLV could be added by Aopen via firmware (4x CLV mode for disc quality scanning would be ideal). And as far as the 32 ECC blocks issue is concerned, it would be nice indeed to have comparable results. However, one should take the numbers with a grain of salt in both cases, Aopen 1648 / AAP and LiteOn, because both are inaccurate. More important than the numbers are the curves, and reducing the drive's influence on them.

25-09-2004	#174
Des Flurane New on Forum Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1	Re: Aopen 1648/AAP discussion Thanks packetloss I've just bought 2 of these puppies, one for me, one for the kids. Reads discs my NEC2500 could not. Thanks again. Des. One question though, in Neroinfo it shows that the drive will not read DVD+r DL, I haven't any of this media atm but will this be upgraded in a future firmware flash. BTW I have flashed to 1.07. Last edited by Des Flurane; 25-09-2004 at 05:36.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Got my Aopen 1648/AAP Pro..	Copywrite	Movie copy software	4	24-08-2005 19:45
Aopen 1648/AAP: Faster reading????	velikigrizli	CD, DVD and Blu-ray Writers	1	06-06-2005 19:43
If you have an AOpen 1648 AAP, read here.	chas0039	CD, DVD and Blu-ray Writers	18	20-03-2005 22:20
Aopen 1648/AAP PRO	MUTCHYMAN	CD, DVD and Blu-ray Writers	2	11-03-2005 18:02
Aopen 1648/AAP Firmware?	Copywrite	CD, DVD and Blu-ray Writers	9	07-03-2005 05:26