Odd results in LG GBC-H20L review/Lite On CD-RW 5239V, C1 what is it?

vbimport

#1

I was looking at the cdfreaks review of this drive
http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/LG-GBC-H20L-Super-Multi-Blue-with-LightScribe-First-Look/Writing-Performance.html

And then I ran into this.

There is more than one way to handle C1 and C2 error detection/correction, but a simple and common way is to detect and correct up to two errors per frame in each stage and detect three or more errors:

* E11: 1 error detected and corrected by C1 layer

* E21: 2 errors detected and corrected by C1 layer

* E31: 3 or more errors detected but not corrected by C1 layer

The sum of these (per second) is called the BLock Error Rate: BLER=E11+E21+E31

* E32: 3 or more errors detected but not corrected by C2 layer

Any E31 is uncorrectable by the C1 layer and will result in the bytes in that frame being redistributed into multiple frames which are passed to the C2 layer.

Any E32 is uncorrectable by the C2 layer and will result in interpolation being used for Audio CDs or will result in third layer error correction being use for Data CDs.
[b]
Different drives have different ways of reporting these errors in a Disc Quality scan. Lite-On CD-RW drives will report C1 and C2 errors this way:

* C1=BLER=E11+E21+E31[/b]

* C2=E32

Then I Looked at the results. That TY disc is the best scan I’ve ever seen so the LG is a greatest TY cd-r burner. :eek: Except that the pattern looks odd when you compare it with a very good disc on testers from which I know that they report C1=BLER=E11+E21+E31 correctly.

The pattern is that odd that I actually would think that this Lite On cd-r writer is not reporting C1 as BLER and that comment in the review is incorrect.

Now is there anyone who knows more about this.

Is the LG GBC-H20L - The best cd-r burner out there or is it that the Lite On CD-RW 5239V isn’t reporting like the older Lite On cd-r burners ?

Can anyone help me out on this ?


#2

Come on 81 views ??? and still not one reaction. :rolleyes:
Or are people busy with thinking about what the results actually show.


#3

I don’t have a SOHR-5239V, so I can’t help you directly on your question.

What is the pattern that seems untypical to you? I’ve had TY (and Ritek JS) discs with as low C1 rates as the scan shown in the review. These were burned and scanned on my LTR-48246S ca. 3-4 years ago. I can check later if I have some scans saved. More recent TY burns (especially with a DVD burner), though, have higher BLER. I think that the newer media isn’t quite as good as it was. Have a look at this old thread that Halc started at CDRLabs a while ago.

G


#4

Hmm… I missed this thread.

I’m actually one of the persons who came up with that particular text for the reviews, and it’s based on my testing of the same CDs in a lot of drives including a LiteOn SOHR-5239V.

I also think the reported C1 are very low and lower than most other drives I tested, but LiteOn DVD burners that are known to only report C1=E31 show lower C1 on my “perfect” test discs than the LiteOn SOHR-5239V and LiteOn SOHR-5238S (on some discs as low as total C1=0).

My conclusion was that this drive reports C1=E11+E21+E31 but still reports lower values than many other drives, perhaps being a better reader.

Other interpretations are certainly possible, but that is my best guess based on the available information.

Here are some comparable scans of one of my test discs with a deliberate defect (radial black line starting some distance from the center of the disc).

Note how the LiteOn 5239V and 5238S show a fair number of C1 during the first 20 minutes of the CD (which hasn’t been damaged) while the LiteOn DVD burners show almost no C1 (E31).


#5

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2134286]My conclusion was that this drive reports C1=E11+E21+E31 but still reports lower values than many other drives, perhaps being a better reader.

Other interpretations are certainly possible, but that is my best guess based on the available information.[/QUOTE]This was my conclusion too and no, i did not help in writing the explanation in our reviews for the CD-R/RW section, just in case anyone asks. :slight_smile:

The thing i think people can do, is test, test, test and test some more, comparing the results of DQ tests on other suitable drives like Plextor and BenQ. Also transfer rate tests on many drives, then you can reach your own conclusion if your particular Lite-On CD-RW drive is a suitable scanning drive for CD-R/RW media. I’m happy with the results my Lite-On 5238S gives for our reviews. It has no problem in finding exceptionally good burns and exceptionally bad burns and, gives a fair representation of everything in-between.


#6

I’m having doubts that it’s reporting the E11’s correctly.

5239V might show a fair number. But the shapes are very odd.
So far I’ve seen only single spikes for C1 if a drives is not reporting
evertyhing.

Any profesional analyzer incombination with a good disc would still show a number of E11’s which will cause a block, not a single spike.
It is this behaviour that I find very questionable.

It’s a shame that I don’t have the time on my hands to see what the lite on really reports.

But for the moment I do not think it’s reporting E11 correctly. Unless someone has some more info/ evidence.


#7

I simply question why on earth they decided to use an inferior drive like a liteon CD-R writer to scan discs when they can use a BenQ drive, which reports far more detail. I’m also fairly certain that most of the reviewers have BenQ drives too as they’re cdfreaks after all :stuck_out_tongue:

sorry for hijacking the thread a little there, Dakhaas.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2134286]
Here are some comparable scans of one of my test discs with a deliberate defect (radial black line starting some distance from the center of the disc).

Note how the LiteOn 5239V and 5238S show a fair number of C1 during the first 20 minutes of the CD (which hasn’t been damaged) while the LiteOn DVD burners show almost no C1 (E31).[/QUOTE]

I see that the liteon cd writers show more C1 at the start but why on earth don’t they show any (hardly any) C2 where the defect is placed? Every single other drive, including a BenQ and Plextor show C2 and lots of it. I bet in reality there are major problems in those spots. Makes me think the Liteon CD writers are far too tolerant scanners and I personally won’t ever trust one over my BenQ.


#8

Been through all this before cd pirate.
Some of the reviewers have BenQ drives, i have a 1640 but its useless as a scanner. We all have Lite-On drives and all our previous reviews were carried out with Lite-On scanners and, it’s Lite-On scanners we will continue to use.

In any case, i don’t share your opinion that the BenQ is a better scanner.


#9

No I didn’t think you would agree…

I’m gonna stop here because it’s dakhaas’ thread not mine.


#10

[QUOTE=dakhaas;2134649]Any profesional analyzer incombination with a good disc would still show a number of E11’s which will cause a block, not a single spike.
It is this behaviour that I find very questionable. [/QUOTE]
Just a couple of thoughts to bring this thread back to its starting point.

I don’t think that you can actually see clustering if there are only ca. 150 C1 counts on the whole disc! I found some 4-5 year old KProbe scans with similar totals and they don’t look much different from the scan in the review.

These were performed with an LTR-48246S, which definitely does show E11 counts. So I think what you’re seeing is simply a “good scan” (and I’d love to get some of the media used in the review…)

G





#11

Hi,[QUOTE=MediumRare;2137365]
These were performed with an LTR-48246S, which definitely does show E11 counts. So I think what you’re seeing is simply a “good scan” (and I’d love to get some of the media used in the review…)
[/QUOTE]I don’t think you can compare the scanning results of your drive to those of a 5239V. These older drives are much more reliable scanners.
I’d really see scans of the same disc done with both, a 48246S and a 5239V.

Michael


#12

[QUOTE=mciahel;2137374]Hi,I don’t think you can compare the scanning results of your drive to those of a 5239V. These older drives are much more reliable scanners.
I’d really see scans of the same disc done with both, a 48246S and a 5239V.

Michael[/QUOTE]
Sure, that would give the best answer to the question- I’d like to see that too. From what I’ve seen here, a 5239V will possibly give you different C1 counts.

But that’s not my point: I’m saying that the [B]pattern[/B] that dakhaas is questioning doesn’t necessarily mean that E11’s are not being reported because I’m seeing a similar pattern with a drive that [B]does[/B] report them.

And I still don’t really understand what you mean with “reliable”. The general drift seems to be to equate “tolerant reader” with “unreliable”- and I don’t accept that. A tolerant reader can still be reliable if it’s [B]consistently[/B] tolerant. You can then take that into account in passing judgement on your burns.

G


#13

Hi,[QUOTE=MediumRare;2137389]Sure, that would give the best answer to the question- I’d like to see that too.[/quote]This shouldn’t be a problem :bigsmile:

From what I’ve seen here, a 5239V will possibly give you different C1 counts.
5239V reports far too low errors in my book, so most scans look excellent. And that’s what I personally consider as unreliable. Of course you are right: the drive should be good enough to compare two discs.

Michael


#14

LITEON SOHR-5239 quality scan is indeed questionable.
New LITE-ON DH-52R2P CD-RW is to be tested for scanning reliability.
I am disappointed CD testing is done with old technique, whilst your own users, other sites, and YSS have been using newer techniques of advanced quality scan.

[QUOTE=Dee-27;2135064]Some of the reviewers have BenQ drives, i have a 1640 but its useless as a scanner. We all have Lite-On drives and all our previous reviews were carried out with Lite-On scanners and, it’s Lite-On scanners we will continue to use.[/QUOTE]Very unfortunate this is more of diplomatic statement.