Suitable drive for PI/PO error tests? SONY 710 vs. LITEON 1633

vbimport

#1

While looking for other information by reading some earlier materials, I noticed that [SONY 710](FCx(this.href);)</FONT> also gives PIE/PIF scans similar to AUDIODEV’s CATS at least for certain discs, making it in the same rank as PLEXTOR 712 and LITEON 167T in this aspect. To my surprise, however, LITEON 1633 behaves differently, though it uses the same hardware as SONY 710. Since many people in this community have LITEON 1633, it will be interesting if somebody would compare scans based on the firmware for the two labels and share the results.

Links:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10957&PageId=18

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10978&PageId=20<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p


#2

There’s no point in trying to duplicate CATS scans, it’s completely irrelevant information. As is comparing scans from different consumer drives. The 1693 LiteOn is a pretty good burner and scanner, a fair ripper and good all-around value.

All scans are firmware affected, regardless of the drive. The LiteOn, Benq, Plextor and NEC drives are all producing reasonable scans, it makes no difference which you use. Physical variations between individual drives, as well as variations in the firmware effects on those same individual drives, make comparisons meaningless.

In spite of what some forums would like to have you believe, the CATS devices are not giving us any information that we can really benefit from, apart from the low level tests of physical disc characteristics that consumer drives do not report. As far as PI/PIF scanning, they are just another drive, no better or worse than consumer drives.


#3

I agree with your opinion about LiteOn 1693, but the subject in my previous post is 1633.

All scans are firmware affected, regardless of the drive.
Partly incorrect. Jitter is not firmware dependent. I do know that PI/PO errors may vary with firmware versions, what surprised me is the possibility of making a LiteOn DVD writer to give scans comparable to CATS simply by change of firmware.

…it’s completely irrelevant information. As is comparing scans from different consumer drives.
Do you include reviews using a combination of drives for testing? I do not agree with you in this matter.

The LiteOn, Benq, Plextor and NEC drives are all producing reasonable scans, it makes no difference which you use. Physical variations between individual drives, as well as variations in the firmware effects on those same individual drives, make comparisons meaningless.
IMO, what you use does make differences, sometimes very significantly. The case I described indicates that firmware plays more important roles than physical variations between individual drives, and it may be possible to make most drive behave more or less similar by firmware modifications.

There’s no point in trying to duplicate CATS scans, it’s completely irrelevant information. … In spite of what some forums would like to have you believe, the CATS devices are not giving us any information that we can really benefit from, apart from the low level tests of physical disc characteristics that consumer drives do not report. As far as PI/PIF scanning, they are just another drive, no better or worse than consumer drives.
I believe only in solid data. I have also performed comparisons between scans by CATS and by a few other devices, and the results support CDRInfo’s investigation within reasonable sense. If you were familiar with CATS, you would have said otherwise. I agree with what Mr. Robert Barnes, Director of AudioDev TestCenter, said in [font=Verdana]a letter to CDFreaks, [/font]so I need not to say more.


#4

Muchin:
Your second link is broken, i.e.:
Http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10978&PageId=20](FCx(this.href):wink:


#5

It works fine if accessed from your post, but not from mine above. I have not been able to do it properly when it is the second link, weird. Link is given again anyway:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10978&PageId=20