The Big KProbe2 Thread

A question that I have not seen asked or gone over.

How important is the "Total Cnt." for PI and PO? These numbers vary tremendously with the many posts that I have seen. Is lower better? Again....I have not seen this mentioned at all.

Note these 3 examples please. All were done with RicohJPNRO2 4x disks. all three were burned on my 811. The GSOA was a reading of the same disk with HSOK, but read on my 851.

Interpretations please. Advise. Which is the best?

I have read that sticking with one burner to do all of your reading with is best. I can see why, what with the two big variables above.

Thanks to all.

The lower the better, of course. However, the average count is more informative, because the size (GB) of the burn may vary, and consequently the total count goes up. I'll explain on example
Disc 1 3.75 Gb Avg=3.5 Total=50,000
Disc 2 4.36 Gb Avg=3.0 Total=65,000

As for your scans, the bottom one looks better than the others. What would you like to know? Which burner to use for scanning? Use the one that gives you more consistent results. I'd go with 851s. BTW, for this drive you can upgrade your fw to GSC2 from Codeguys.

Thanks for the quick reply VAD. I appreciate it.

1. Lower is better I understand, but was surprised not to see it mentioned. I mean, I've seen posters state "great scan" when PI is in the millions!

Size wize I get too.

2. Yeah. The bottom one is a lot better. But the same disk as the upper right one.(?) I know that it's been mentioned, but why so much of a variance from drive to drive? I mean jeesh.

So I should perhaps stick with the 851 for steady reading, even though it reads so much lower errors than the 811? If so, OK.

Between firmwares, HSOQ and HSOK seem very close, perhaps slightly better with HSOQ.

Thanks again

Neither total or average counts are particularly relavant except for comparisons. Max count and the general appearance of the curve is more informative. In other words, a disc with a total count of 200,000 is not necessarily any harder to read than one with 20,000, as long as the max count is within the specs. Other factors can also influence the total counts, such as sampling rate.

Here are the final two of all three firmwares burned on the 811, but read on the 851 (other one above). Which one would you (anyone) choose to use in the 811?

Thanks to you also rdgrimes for the assistance. That helped a lot.

for readability maybe not but i would say a very low error count would be a good indicator of high quality media..ie all my good prodiscs, TYs, and mccs have low total Po counts..usually under 1000.

Like the ones I posted then, around 250? Good. I have gathered that PI is not as important.(?) What do you think of the 3 latter ones that I posted above? Which firmware looks best?

Thanks Jamos, and to all.

I'd take the right one. Same PO-Count but much less PI-Count.
Yes PO-Max is a tiny little bit higher but still ok.

Thanks for that. But what about the bottom one of the three above (four posts above that one)? It looks very good too. It's actually between these particular too that I'm having a tug of war.

How did this slip under the CDRLabs and CD Freaks radar?
http://www.cdrinfo.com/forum/tm.asp?m=70454

> some cosmetic changes, ex. PO -> PIF
Finally. No more confusion.

@Pinan
>But what about the bottom one of the three above
Ok. Then for gods sake takes this one. It will be fine.
Do you always have such a hard time when needing to make a decision?
They would both do fine, and you can hardly tell any difference...
Take the one of those 2 that is the most recent one.

I don't think we will offer this for download until we can confirm the source of the file.

Yeah, I was a little surprised by this as well. I've been gone all day so I haven't had a chance to ask Karr about it yet.

Being anal is a "quality" of mine. Sorry to get on your nerves. I'm unfamiliar with this test and was only seeking guidance, as I have given for several years and 20K posts elsewhere.

Thanks for the note.

I see Ian is walking on the dark side tonight.

Version 2.2.2 appears legit. Updated opening post - tutorial with the new file.

I'm using the Lite-On DVD - Reader for Kprobe scans.
Model : SOHD:167T.
I've read some users said that the scans on a Reader is unreliable compared with the scans of writer.
Question Is, How unreliable.? , i mean does it give higher values, or does it gives lower values, or mixed values.

Thanks in Advances.

Please read this thread and in particular, this post

fyi 2.2.2 seems to have some issues im sticking with the previous version..one thing my scale is messed up for my pis..have to scroll with right mouse button.

Yea, 2.2.2 is incomplete and released before it was really ready... the author is said to be preparing to release a new version in the near future to address all the issues in 2.2.2.

__
Ok how then have a good start (ECMA 267 excepted) to code such a thing ?
I intend to develop a project like this.

Thanx

I am trying to run some tests on Maxell (RG02) media burned in my newly modded 411s@811 (HSOE), but KProbe 2 will only read it at 1x... in the beginning section when it is starting up the drive, it seems to spin up and down a couple times, then it starts reading at 1x. In Nero DVD Speed Burn Quality Test, it never even passes the "spinning up drive" stage...

So, what causes this? If the disc reads well in KProbe2 is there any reason to consider it a bad burn? Are results at 1x similar to results at 4x (ie, valid?)

It will read other discs (including other Maxells) at 4x/Max/whatever I choose...

Since it only does this with one disc, I'd say it's a problem with that disc. I've never seen such a thing myself.

Well, it does it with one other Maxell disc from this same spindle that was burned before I changed the drive (I ran the KProbe before the drive was changed as well).

However, the KProbe results at 1x are fantastic, although I only got to 40% before I had to leave for work, but it was in the range of this:

PI:Max=12, Avg=5
PIF:Max=2, Avg=.7

So I'm still wondering if 1x scans are valid. I'll post a graph tonight, if I have time to let it scan all the way through.

The 1X scans should in theory be more accurate than the ones done at 4X since KProbe must constantly poll the mediatek chipset to retrieve the error counts, therefore there should be less missed error counts for 1X scans than for 4X scans making the 1X scan error count more accurate. However it takes 4 times as long to do a 1X scan and life is short, so it seems that 4X is a good compromise. Because of this polling it is a good idea to not have the real time display turned on, or for that matter any processor intensive task. The 4X rate is used so that everyone can compare scans done under similar conditions and not have scan time be prohibitive.