DiscSpeed/TRTs/Setting read speed

vbimport

#1

[qanda]This thread is about the LG GSA-H55L. Click here to see full specs[/qanda]I am running TRTs with DiscSpeed (and previous versions). I am testing mostly 16x DVD+R that have been burned with data or an .mpg file (not DVD-Video) . The thing that puzzles me is no matter what I set the READ speed in ‘Standard Tests’ on the right side, clicking “Selected” and setting the speed; when I run the test it always runs starting at 6.66x and finishing CAV to the maximum, usually 15-16x. The same goes for using the ‘Current’ button and trying to change the speed with ‘DriveSpeed’ . Nothing !!! will change the speed at which the TRT is performed. :confused: I cannot see, why have the function if it doesn’t do anything to the test.

Is it just my Drive, and firmware, thats disallowing any change in the speed of the test ??? Or perhaps something else I don’t know about in using the DiscSpeed tool…


#2

i dont know why yours is not working properly but i tested mine and its working with 4.7.7.16.

[ol]
[li]options - standard test
[/li][li]selected test be sure to select transfer rate
[/li][li]speed - read speed - selected [choose speed]
[/li][li]benchmark tab
[/li][li]run test menu
[/li][li]transfer rate
[/li][/ol]

i did these steps changing a few different speeds and the read speed maxed out accordingly.


#3

Well … the first most curious thing in my mind is, [U]what Drive and F/W Ver. are you using ?[/U] This could be the whole ruling factor in this problem.

I use the LG GSA H55L Ver. 1.06 . Most of my discs were DVD-Video and LG firmware will not TRT faster than CAV 2.5x --> 6x. It is the riplock in the firmware and has to be hacked out with MCSE to TRT DVD-Video any faster. But Data discs are [U]not locked[/U] at these speeds. All data discs (.mpg or otherwise) start at their beginning maximum and run to their maximum burned speed.

I have always TRTed this way, until recently I wanted to do some slower tests. I discovered it wouldn’t respond to any setting. (by the method you noted above) I have several versions of CD/DVD Speed including the one you use, and it doesn’t work on any.

My next try was with the ‘DriveSpeed’ tool. I set the speed control to ‘current’ and activated the Nero DriveSpeed 3 control and set the read speed to lower settings; No go, it didn’t work. It doesn’t work to slow down the read speed in just a simple copy to the HD. The eject button and the stop button on DriveSpeed tool do work, and when it restarts it seems to be slower for a second then picks up to maximum transfer speed.

The write speed can be changed but nothing will change the read speed. The firmware reads at maximum and if it has a problem with a sector it slows itself down until it gets the sector and continues at a faster speed, slowing only when there is a read problem with a sector. These are not bad sectors, only sectors burned at a lower quality level. So the firmware is saying “I will control the read speed, slowing only when necessary.”

So I’m kind of wondering if any other H55’s can be read speed controlled. And if so, what firmware version is it using. I’m sure many other Drives can be, I’m just wondering if this is just a Drive/ f/w Ver. specific problem.

There is nothing running in my system, that I know of, that could interfere with read speed control. Except that I am running the [U]Intel App Accelerator[/U] and it is in direct control of the ATA-100 IDE controller. But speed control involves commands sent to the Drive firmware not the ATA controller. It appears the LG firmware just ignores the read commands in this case.


#4

I have an LG GSA H55L Ver. 1.05 and ran a TRT using Nero DiscSpeed 4.11.4.0.

This was on a DVD-Video disc. It went from CAV 2.51 to 5.80.

I guess the LG drives are not good for Quality tests nor TRT.


#5

Yes Mike109 this is the normal TRT rates for this drive (and most LG’s I think) for TRT tests on DVD-Video Discs that have the standard DVD folders and files in them for playing on any DVD player. It is a read-lock built into the Firmware. It can be hacked out with MCSE but its never really been a problem for me. The drive runs very slow when you play DVD movies so you don’t really need a high speed TRT test.

However … LG has enabled Disc Quality Scans in their new Firmware release Ver. 1.06 . I’m using DiscSpeed 4 and I had to go into the Registry and remove the Block from a Reg Key that Blocks the function in DiscSpeed 4 —>
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Ahead\Nero Toolkit\CD Speed\CD Quality

And another for DiscSpeed 4 —>
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Nero\Nero8\Nero Toolkit\DiscSpeed\CD Quality

There is a “Block” Value and data line you can easily see in there. It includes several Drives. You just need to take out the LG stuff.

Cd Speed has one in HKCU and HKLM here:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ahead\Nero Toolkit\CD Speed\CD Quality

Anyway, it does a good job on DQ scanning. I’ve tested it on good discs and bad discs I have and it tells the truth. Below is an example of a commercial Burned DVD movie called ‘Soldiers’ that is scanned perfect at all speeds. Below that, is a scan of a CMC MAG M01 which is not a high quality disc for burning. It will burn with different qualities at different read speeds depending on how fast you burn it. I burned it faster and it showed better quality at 4xCLV than an 8x DQ scan. Another time, it was better at 8x scan than slower ones if I burned it at 16x. The quality being worse at a faster scan, or a slower scan. Burning CMC MAG M01 at 8x showed much lower quality at an 8x scan and much better quality at a 4x or 2x scan.

This was scanned with the H55L Ver. 1.06




#6

Terrible jitter scanning capability IMHO. I hope you’ve tried scanning these discs on a different and well-supported DQ-capable drive before arriving at any conclusions - better to be safe than sorry.


#7

Forget the numbers !!

Jitter is numerically an amplified reading and is not measuring an average jitter on the graph in this case. Most jitter measures an average of 16 to 19% on this scanner. It does measure jitter in an accurate relative method that does tell you where your lowest and highest jitter is. It is not relative to other scanners but then jitter is not going to be the same in all drives do to physical differences.

I know what your saying … No, this is the only drive I’m using; but I’m using it to measure the relative quality of my burns with the same drive I burned with, and the same drive I read and play movies with … and the the same drive does the DQ scans.

[U]My control reference sources are[/U] [B]Commercial burned Discs[/B], known high quality burns. All which check out perfect. And … burned discs such as [B]2.4x DL burned at 4x, low quality ritek[/B]. All resulting in very bad scans at all speeds. And low quality discs burned, then failed a smooth TRT, showing a very high PIF in the TRT line scatter.

I’m not concerned with its relativity to other scanners; just how it helps me in my [I]Write strategies.[/I]

I’m impressed with a characteristic of this LG scanner, to appear to be very [I]discerning and picky[/I] about giving a quality reading. This scanner, when it shows a low PIE/PIF, at 8x to 2x, is showing a truly very high quality burn.


#8

I’ve had commercial discs that aren’t high quality (they’re stamped too if you’re detailed about semantics) and even scan worse than those I’ve burned - and that was when they were new even. If they average at 16-19% jitter I wouldn’t call that good also - disregarding the numbers, jitter is also important in determining media<->writer burn quality.

All I’m saying is that I really don’t trust the results at all. Setting a scan at 8x and it results in something in between 6x and 5x scanning speed may already be dubious, as well as a 4x scan which is actually done at 3x. Does the drive always do this on every disc scanned? Is there some sort of pattern that is followed with believable variances when multiple scans are made? I don’t have that specific drive so I can’t really test its scanning capability on my own although I understand your desire to test on this certain drive.

I’d really like to see scans of those discs you’ve already showed using other well-known DQ scanners just to support your case. :wink: I’ve had CMC MAG M01 that scans at a constant ~1M+ PIE and 4000+ PIF even on a tolerant scanner, imagine how it looked on a picky BenQ DW1640. :wink:

Disc scanning is incredibly unreliable but it does provide a few insights that help us to determine the best course of action in testing media batch qualities and deciding on write speeds and strategies so sometimes it’s a necessary evil. Seeing how weird your scans look incomparable to other scans makes it even tougher to believe an already unreliable home-testing method (and also the reason why MediaTek/Nexperia/Sanyo chipsets are preferred due to their relative reliability in disc scanning).


#9

Well, firstly I am not really qualified to make a strong case about LG scanning, since this is the only drive I have and the only drive I’ve used for scanning. Obviously, this LG scanning is not directly comparable to other scanners. It behaves different in a few ways … like the ‘Jitter’ . I have seen scans of discs burned with an H55 on other scanners helping to give an idea of what is a good/bad quality disc for burning. The only thing I’m concerned with is being able to compare the burns I have done with this drive and being able to tell which write speed provides the best quality …, with this drive.

Well most of the discs are showing that Avg. Jitter value of 16-19% but a couple were 20 and 21% I believe. Anyway its much higher than typical jitter readings so it is only useful in the local test environment. What is more important to me is PIE/PIF levels of the different recordings. Renting DVD movies and testing them show a very low PIE/PIF and those discs never skip or fail a TRT. Other burns that I have done on low quality media show a scattered line on the TRT and a very high PIF in the same area. Perhaps I can show you the TRT and DQ scan on that one.

All I’m saying is that I really don’t trust the results at all. Setting a scan at 8x and it results in something in between 6x and 5x scanning speed may already be dubious, as well as a 4x scan which is actually done at 3x. Does the drive always do this on every disc scanned? Is there some sort of pattern that is followed with believable variances when multiple scans are made? I don’t have that specific drive so I can’t really test its scanning capability on my own although I understand your desire to test on this certain drive.

Yea, this was a little confusing to me at first. The firmware does not accept all speed selections. And I think data and DVD-Video are handled just a little different. A lot of my discs are burned with straight .mpg movie files which the firmware interpret as data.

Yes 8x shows the speed you mentioned and 4xCLV shows 3xCLV on the chart. The factor at play here is in the [U]Advanced Button[/U]. In there you can scan at 1-ecc or 8-ecc intervals. You can change the test length from [U]Speed to Accuracy [/U]in 5 different positions. Scanning at 1-ecc intervals is too slow for me to get a multiple of tests done. So my setting is 8-ecc intervals. I started at the full speed setting which is fast but faster than I need so I bumped it up one notch towards accuracy. Full accuracy is way too slow for my multiple testing at this time. I think Full Speed takes a little over a 1000 samples (4.7 gig discs) and one notch up takes a bit over 2000. The next one up is over 4000, the next 8000, and full accuracy around 16000 samples and is way too long for my purposes right now. I did a full speed and a full accuracy on one test and they were different, but not tremendously so.

What you see on the chart is a speed calculation of how fast your progressing through the position on the disc and calculated from the beginning to the end of the discs total size. There is no RPM indicator on these graphs. So yes the speed indicator drops as you move the Accuracy slider towards Accuracy because it has to take twice as many samples with each notch over. In those graphs you see the speed progress across the discs with a scan length set at about 2000 samples for a single layer disc and 4000 samples for a DL.

I’d really like to see scans of those discs you’ve already showed using other well-known DQ scanners just to support your case. :wink: I’ve had CMC MAG M01 that scans at a constant ~1M+ PIE and 4000+ PIF even on a tolerant scanner, imagine how it looked on a [I]picky[/I] BenQ DW1640. :wink:

Disc scanning is incredibly unreliable but it does provide a few insights that help us to determine the best course of action in testing media batch qualities and deciding on write speeds and strategies so sometimes it’s a necessary evil. Seeing how weird your scans look incomparable to other scans makes it even tougher to believe an already unreliable home-testing method (and also the reason why MediaTek/Nexperia/Sanyo chipsets are preferred due to their relative reliability in disc scanning).

Yes, I would too. But right now there is no way to get these discs to any other scans unless I mailed it to another scanner.

So far its working for me in showing me the relative quality of my burns, and that is all that is really important.

The following scans are of an .mpg movie file burned with Nero at 8x. The disc is a Maxell CMC MAG M01. The samples taken are about 2000 / 8-ecc intervals.
[U]The first[/U] one is the TRT.
[U]The second[/U] is the scan at 8x.
[U]The third[/U] is at 4xCLV showing a little improvement. 2xCLV would probably look a little better still but the point is this disk has its better read ability at much slower speeds.
[U]The fourth[/U] is this .mpg burned on at 16x with ‘Create Disk’ using the same type and batch, Maxell CMC MAG M01. This will pass the TRT smooth. The 16x burn showing much better quality than the 8X burn.
[U]The Fifth[/U] is the same test as the fourth but at 4xCLV. As you can see the quality improves at the lower speed. But of course DVD movies in .vob or .mpg read very slowly anyway.

It appears that CMC MAG M01 burns better DQ at 16x than at 8x as far as using my drive to burn it, read it, and scan it. There were a couple that had high quality at 2x and 4x CLV but worse at DQ 8x scan when they were burned at 8x instead of 16x.

Anyway … Great scanning Gurus … teach me where I’m wrong and why I can’t use this drive to measure quality. Teach me of the higher Jitter reading and where its useless and why it can’t be used relatively.

I’m always up to pointers. :flower:







#10

please post three scans of the same disc, at the same speed, using the same scanning interval and same speed/accuracy settings. which ever settings are your favorite.

i do agree with you, these disc quality scans are useless for anyone but you.


#11

OK Troy, here are 3 sequential scans of the same disc with the same settings. The disc is TDK CMC MAG M01. It has a slightly higher Avg. Jitter.

Scanning Statistics
Elapsed time: 10:04
Number of samples: 2194
Average scanning interval: 8.00 ECC
Glitches removed: 0


Scanning Statistics
Elapsed time: 10:05
Number of samples: 2194
Average scanning interval: 8.00 ECC
Glitches removed: 0


Scanning Statistics
Elapsed time: 10:04
Number of samples: 2194
Average scanning interval: 8.00 ECC
Glitches removed: 0





#12

Quite frankly the jitter reported by the LG GSA-H55L seems to be a random number judging by how the graph arbitrarily leaps up and down. I would ignore jitter completely in those scans.


#13

Yes Drage, I haven’t figured that out yet either. Its graphing ‘Instant’ instead of ‘Average’. The value is much higher. It does show different averages from different burns (repeatedly) but I haven’t been able to figure out its relevance to the Burn. If you divided it by 2, it might be a bit closer to normal. But I’m not sure what its telling me at this point.

I’m going to keep researching this Jitter reading from the LG. It may be meaningless…


#14

i am really trying to agree with you. but i do not see how any of the information received from those quality scans are of any relevance to what is considered with in specs. even using the information to compare your own scans. the numbers are just outrageous and i see no connection between those scans.

i suggest you read this thread for some good information.
http://club.cdfreaks.com/f96/precision-accuracy-reliability-disc-quality-pi-po-jitter-tests-163379/

there are severl more which provide similar information which will come with a simple search.


#15

[QUOTE=troy512;2220851]i am really trying to agree with you. but i do not see how any of the information received from those quality scans are of any relevance to what is considered with in specs. even using the information to compare your own scans. the numbers are just outrageous and i see no connection between those scans.[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly. The scans are just too unrealistic and arbitrary (thanks for the word Drage! :)) for it to be used even only as a comparison for scans made on the drive itself. You’d be better off just using the drive for TRTs (since it does show some pickiness with media) and not run any DQ tests on it altogether - save yourself the time it takes to scan at 3x/5-6x. :flower:

PS. Don’t burn CMC MAG M01 at 16x! 8-12x will be better. :wink: Or better yet, get yourself some Verbatims or some of that media that troy512’s using as his avatar! :bigsmile: As unreliable as the scans may be, the f*cked up TRT shows how bad the media truly is.


#16

[quote=troy512;2220851]i am really trying to agree with you. but i do not see how any of the information received from those quality scans are of any relevance to what is considered with in specs. even using the information to compare your own scans. the numbers are just outrageous and i see no connection between those scans.

i suggest you read this thread for some good information.
http://club.cdfreaks.com/f96/precision-accuracy-reliability-disc-quality-pi-po-jitter-tests-163379/

there are severl more which provide similar information which will come with a simple search.[/quote]

I am going to read as much of that huge thread as I can over time. These tests are with CMC MAG M01 which does not produce low PIE/PIF readings in general. Sorry, I don’t have any Verbatim or T-Yuden around to run some comparative burns, later maybe. I do have Panasonic gold DVD-RAM and I will post that scan now. I’m not concerned with specs. I am concerned with [U]‘local comparative relativity’[/U]. And so far, with my discs and burns, PIE/PIF is telling me, what is burned good, and what is burned bad. As you’ve already seen in an extreme case, what I posted above, high PIF correlates with bad TRT. Slower speeds show a reduction in PIF in that case which is logical.

You said [I]“even using the information to compare your own scans. the numbers are just outrageous and i see no connection between those scans.” [/I]The numbers are relatively correct for [U]Local comparative relativity.[/U] Now if your talking about the three consecutive scans above then I would just disagree. They are all connected in PIE/PIF across the graph, with levels changing slightly. The graph has re-scaled in the second and third because of a slightly higher PIF on the second and third scan. I should have locked the graphs so they would all appear the same as far as scaling goes.

If your talking about the ones above that. Those 5 are different. The second and third were that bad TRT burned at 8x and scanned at 8x and 4xCLV (it would show 4x if I used ‘Full Speed’) . In this case the Slower you scan the lower the PIE/PIF in this case. If you look at the form shape of the PIE and PIF you will see the Geometry is similar even though the PIE/PIF levels have dropped in the Third scan. So what is so difficult to understand about that !? This Burn scans even better at 2xCLV. It just means that this low quality disc has a better read quality within a narrow Bandwidth of lower RPMs; burned at 8x. But burning it at 16x, the fourth and fifth scans show a higher read quality in a higher RPM Bandwidth seen in the scans at 8x and 4xCLV. The TRT is smooth and the drive does not have to drop to a lower RPM to read it; as is necessary in the case with the 8x burn.

Noo … I have confirmed it [B]is[/B] telling me quality. It tells me much more about the burn than just a TRT. I will admit I can’t figure the Jitter yet but the numbers on PIE/PIF tell me exactly whats going on !

Well guess what … the exact opposite is what I have determined. With my drive, with my CMC MAG M01s, both 8x and 12x burns result in bad TRTs; but 16x burns always show a smooth TRT all the way to 16x read. And guess what … the scans show high PIE/PIF on those 8x/12x burns scanned at 8x. Much higher than a 16x burn. Wouldn’t think this would be the case would you; neither did I, until I put it to the test.
I am going to get some Verbatims Mcc 004 I think.

Here is a scan of a DVD-RAM burned the usual 2x-3x with verify.

In order to exacerbate this argument. Please tell me how bad this scan is of a DVD-RAM burn and how the PIE/PIF numbers are so far out of reality !



#17

i know how to read your graphs with out locking the error limits. the only reliable information from your quality graphs are the write speeds, even the read speeds are all over the place.

looking at the graph above i should not have to say anything, you already know this drive is unreliable. every earlier quality graph you have posted is in no way comparable to the above graph. how can this drive be of any help?

here is another thread for you to look at.
http://club.cdfreaks.com/f76/cmc-dvd-r-85868/

and a few of my post with in
http://club.cdfreaks.com/2220982-post187.html
http://club.cdfreaks.com/2220985-post188.html
http://club.cdfreaks.com/2220987-post189.html

edit// please, only trying to be friendly here, save your screen shots using the save button from within cd-dvd speed, do not use full screen and save your images as PNG files. the images will look better. :slight_smile:


#18

Just for laughs, I’m betting you’re thinking that the media you have is crap. :stuck_out_tongue: You’re intelligent enough to understand a good deal of home scanning methods, so go get some other media to burn and compare with. :wink: :flower:

Sorry to have assumed this, I concluded that the TRT in your post that had 5 pics was of a burn done at 16x since it was bunched up with DQ scans of 16x burns - is it a scan of an 8x or 12x burn then? And yes I do agree that there are some times where results are better at different speeds - but in my case I have attributed this to the writer primarily rather than solely the quality of the media.

Btw, your multiple scans of that one disc shows variances of over 1500 PIF between each scan alone, and the PIE also scales along with it. I don’t know how useful that is for you but if you’re just looking at their shape rather than the values that are given by the scan then I’d say it is somewhat useful for your purposes of visual comparison. But me, I’d rather stick to what is known and accepted as good “limits” (and outlined in strict specifications) in value than look at the pretty wave-like shapes in colorful graphs. :wink:

It is confusing (at least for me) to try and interpret your results (and see if they are valid scans) since it’s the 1st ones I’ve seen from a Panasonic chipset (and that I don’t have one to support you). I still agree with the senior veterans that the drive is useless for testing/comparison although I’m interested in how you prove these as valid results. :slight_smile:


#19

Well, write speeds are done during ‘Create Disk’ which I have included. I … may be … uh … losing you a little here. The green read speed line ?? is that what your referring to. They all start at about 4x and CAV to about 6.5x. You do know that this line will change when I increase or decrease the ‘Accuracy Bar’ in [U]Advanced Tab.[/U] It is a ‘Progress rate’ indicator. And shows in XYZx speed figure how fast your progressing from the beginning to the end of the disc. It has nothing to do with the RPM of the drive. The more samples you take the lower this number will be. I have a graph I’ll show you that is an 8x scan at full speed taking only 1000 samples. The Accuracy bar all the way to the left. And yes, I use the Png from the Discspeed tab and some of them are in full screen but I’ll save them in a smaller windowed mode. I didn’t know it would make a difference. I’ll dig up this PNG I have to post now. It may have been done in Full Screen. You’ll see the progress green line shown at a much faster level.

Nooo … I have not determined this drive is unreliable. I have found it to burn many DVDs and they all work. Data is safe and burned well on my DVD-RAM. I have found that CMC MAG M01 is unreliable and I have found a better more reliable way to burn this type of disc using the new Scanning mode on this drive.

The other scans I posted are CMC MAG M01 and one commercial movie disc. I need some quality discs to burn and post but I don’t have anything except a lot of DVD-RAM which should burn at a much higher quality, with a much lower PIE/PIF and if scanned with this LG, should confirm that; which it has I believe.

I appreciate all your comments and I hope nothing I’ve posted seems unfriendly. No such a thing was ever intended.:wink:

I will read the links you posted. It will take me a while but I’ll get all the intel needed.

Now I have to get to Evos post…



#20

Yes of course, this goes without needing to say. I have in mind some Verbatim MCC-004

Yea, Post 1 is the TRT and 2 is the 8x scan and 3 is the 4xCLV scan. And yes, this was burned at 8x with Nero.

Post 4 and 5 were the same file burned with ‘Create Disc’ at 16x. 8x and 4XCLV scan and showed much better results.

Yes it increases a little on each scan. My guess is temperature. 10 minutes each time. Might effect the numbers a little more on a fourth scan. But the general geometry of the graph is the same for each. The second and third scored the same. If I reduce the Accuracy bar to 1000 samples all those numbers will cut in half. If I increase the Accuracy bar to 4000 samples the numbers will double. The most important thing is primarily the PIF level and frequency of the PIF level hits. The higher, the worse the quality. Generally PIE will fall along with higher levels with high PIF hits. Some scans of commercial discs I’ve tested will result in a much lower ‘Total’ figure for both PIE and PIF and thats always a good sign. Such discs, unless they have a defect, usually show very low level hits on both PIE and PIF across the whole disc, scanned at any speed.

The graphs may look a bit different, but I think the purpose is still served. I’ll get some MCC-004 and test it at several burn speeds and see if it shows much better scans at all speeds. Of course proving DQ is valid has always had its caveats about accuracy. But its the only thing we have, to work out write strategies, and I’ve seen it prove out already by using a low quality disc and seeing readability (TRT) change with a different write speeds and confirming it with scans. But yes the Drive I’m using can be a major factor in all this. This is why [U]local comparative relativity[/U] is the main thing of importance to me.