Comparation article in cdrinfo

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News...RelatedID=3964
I just read the article.
lol!
Incredible!
A statistic population of thousands of DVD models and a sample of 27 DVD-Video players and 20 DVD computer players!
Great compatibility test!
lol!
I haven't got no problems of compatibility with DVD+R,..and I needed to make two copies from two DVD-R to two DVD+R due to the fact that two friends can't see their DVD-Rs of their wedding. Now, they can see them.
If I these two recorders were in the test, the results vary in 4,27% less compatiblity of DVD-R than DVD+R.

ferraman.
---
Please, Cdrinfo be serious.
---
Please, Excuse my english. Thanks

What do you expect from CDrinfo?

> A statistic population of thousands of DVD models and a sample
> of 27 DVD-Video players and 20 DVD computer players!

Actually they used only 24 discs and 47 players, thus the 1128
combinations they are so proud of Note that these 24 discs
come from 3 manufacturers only and they don't say a word about
compatibility bit settings. Some very insignificant results if
you ask me.

> What do you expect from CDrinfo?

A unique combination of ignorance and presumption, and once again
I am not disappointed

This CDRInfo slamming is getting really tiresome. They contribute to the community just as much as cdrlabs and cdfreaks. Either you do the test yourself better or you give them at least some respect for the things they've done

Let's all improve upon each other's understanding and not feel threatened by other's knowledge or lack of it. And let the bygones be bygones, ok?

Friendly regards,
Halcyon

PS I'm by no means affiliated by CDR Info. I read all of the three aforementioned sites and all give me very valuable information. I want to thank the contributors of all three sites.

I totally agree.

> either you do the test yourself better or you give them at least some
> respect for the things they've done

People who do something without common sense and then claim to have
discovered The Truth might get respect from you, they don't get any from me.

> Let's all improve upon each other's understanding and not feel threatened
> by other's knowledge or lack of it. And let the bygones be bygones, ok?

Halcyon, one person can dislike another one without feeling threatened, jealous,
or whatever other feeling you may think of, but simply for rational reasons.
And my reasons to dislike cdrinfo are that they know little and pretend a
lot (if you want evidences, just ask). As for understanding each others,
do you really know how cdrinfo deals with other sites ?

Anyway, I'm off to more serious matters.

This is actually the first time ever I negativly comment on another site in public, but gathering from the comments, none of you have a clue what is going on

So here is some information to enlighten you:

We have noticed that CDRInfo has been providing information to its users which came straight from our forums without crediting us, also firmwares provided by one our moderators were directly linked, again without credits (something considered not done by any webmaster).

Articles written by CDRInfo do many times contain information that is incorrect, copy/pasted from other sites/forums and without mentioning of credits. This is respectless and is something CD Freaks is totally against. As you might have noticed when you read our mainpage we always provide a source for our information.

Also there is this behaviour as reported by spath, which is again respectless.

Meanwhile there are also numerous of hillarious reports of CDRInfo trying to get money from people within the industry. And we even noticed that CDRInfo reports test results for tests they never did. We noticed this when comparing the results which differed. When checking it back with the company, our result was correct, while the one of CDRInfo made no sence at all and we could only conclude they did not do the test at all.

Testing should be done correctly or not at all, people reading these tests will many times depend on the conclusion of a test, you will understand that if a test is not done correctly, the conclusion is not correct and the user is misinformed, something nobody benefits from.

CDRInfo was once a respected site, we linked to them and wished them nothing but good. But you will understand that after these 'accidents' we have lost a lot of respect.

Also their latest article does not give proof of their technical capabilites, reasons are already stated by spath, who undoubtly will be able to provide more details why this test is far from reliable upon request.

I do not say that CD Freaks is perfect, but CDRInfo certainly isn't.

Right.

Any kind of tests, which are described in reviews, are really done, and if the result is weird, they are redone. Examples are the LiteOn 52x, which refused to burn the bundled cd-rw, or the Plextor Premium which took loooooooooooong time to recognise a Doc.loc disc.
Errors can happen in tests, or a certain test can accidently be forgotten, but that certainly does not happen intentionally on cdfreaks.

As Domi has described, cdrinfo is not even trying to make perfect reviews and articles...although what they do it not even close to what the german CHIP is doing, it's enough to be annoying...

Fscking crooks. And people actually wanted to give 'em respect?

Thanks for a new addition to my signature...

EDIT posted the link on brennmeister and gravure-news

---

Last edited by alexnoe; 19-07-2003 at 14:10.

I can perhaps better understand now many people's stance about CDRInfo (and their owners). I still believe that some of the information they provide is useful, not available elsewhere and based on all information available to me also accurate.

While I agree on the copy/paste mentality as I've personally notified them how they have incorrectly copied (along with OCR errors) material to their Writing Quality article from Pohlman's "Principles of Digital Audio" for which they have also failed to provide a proper reference, I cannot know the details of other perhaps personal matters behind the scenes. And even if I did, I think there are no reason for condemning the quality of all the information they provide. If all of the information they provided was false, which it clearly isn't, perhaps I would think otherwise.

My personal stance is that as long as they provide useful and factual information, which they do - as not all of the material they publish is by any means false, they are useful to me as a source of information.

If other people have some personal grumblings about the owners/authors as persons, I think they should keep them as separate arguments. Otherwise they succumb to ad hominems and make themselves look biased.

The rules of proper argumentation dictate that one should not let one's personal opinion about argumentor's persona cloud one's judgements about the argument itself. This extends as far as one argumentor should not be considered erroneous in all of one's arguments, even if some previous arguments have been shown to be false.

And if there are factual errors, I suggest you do the same I do: point out the errors and let others draw their own conclusions. Name calling is immature and unprofessional, even if based on personal experience. And yes, I'm guilty of that as well, but not proud of it.

Please do not understand this as a criticism (or some silly juvenile male lenght comparison between different sites or their respective owners). I just wish we could let factual issues remain factual and personal matters remain personal.

Furthermore, please do not understand that I'm in no way defending CDRInfo authors/owners for the things they have been claimed to have done. If they are indeed guilty of such things, then those acts should be condemned, but the facts they provide can also remain useful.

I'm off the soap box as I have had my say. People can draw their own conclusions. I speak for nobody except myself and am in favor of no one. I just wish we'd see less of these 'mine is bigger than yours' wars. Can't we just try and get along?

Friendly regards,
Halcyon

PS If you want to learn from CDRInfo, try looking at the way they approach DAE testing. There are many things people could learn by doing some of the things they do right. And again, not to mention other's don't do it right, just differently.

I've read both article of cdfreaks and cdrinfo. I think cdrinfo should have used more media for their test, but i also think cdrfreaks should do some test to demonstrate content of their theorist article. I hope well'se a test similar to those make by cdrinfo also here on cdfreaks, I also hope it will be more complete.
Sorry for my bad english
Andrea