Which plextool test?

vbimport

#1

I am new to media testing, and wanted to know using Plextools 2.19 with my PX 716, which test should i be running to check how good a written dvd media was burned? Thanks…also, on the recommended test, where should i look on how to evaluate those results?


#2

sum8 for PIE errors, sum1 for PIF errors, Read Transfer Rate Test to see how well the disc is read (in that particular drive).

read the stickies in the Media section and the Plextor section.


#3

Put a DVD±R disc that you’ve burned into the PX716 and choose the “Q-check PI/PO” test in Plextools. In Preferences, choose Good Accuracy or High Accuracy (High takes 28 minutes!), and then press Start.

When finished, right-click on the graph, choose Save … As HTML. Give it a filename, and make sure to choose Save As Type … Portable Network Graphics (png) because they’re a lot smaller than the default Windows BMP (and can be posted here which BMPs can’t).

Now you’ll have something to compare to the many, many posts in the Post your Plextor DVD Quality Scans Here thread which can be found here: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=115081

You should also take note of the DVD’s Manufacturer ID (as well as the name brand & speed you bought it under), which can be found in the CD/DVD Info section of Plextools. This is important because you cannot compare different media’s performances … and brand names like Memorex use many different Manufacturer IDs (“MID”) which are not apparent when you buy it.

Do try and use the search function in CDFreaks as much as possible, too.


#4

Why most of Plex owners don’t use burst test?
It takes PIE and POE by one pass, and it may tell us much more about quality burn than PIE only.

PI error is defined as a row in an ECC block having 1 byte or more containing errors. It don’t shows how much errorneous bytes really occurs.
A row is 182 bytes long (172 data bytes & 10 bytes PI codes). One PI may be 1,2,3,…10,…100,…172 errorneous bytes. :iagree:
PO errors (burst test) shows consecutive errors if it exists.

For example:
PI (SUM8 test) result looks as excellent, but burst test detects one troublesome long block containing consecutive errors.




#5

Once more example.
PIE results of two burns looks around equal (picture 1, 2).
POE results shows significant quality difference (picture 3, 4).
Second burn is really bad (picture 5).







#6

Really interesting, thanks GeoN! :smiley:

ET


#7

You guys, THANKS a bunch, that was excellent tutolage. :iagree:
Now i can start testing .

Another quick question, after testing and seeing a good result does this mean you should stick with that media? Will tests with the same media on the same drive vary greatly? What is the actual “purpose” of testing? I have probably burnt 2000 dvds with various software with my Pio DVR 107 f1.21 and i have never tested ANY thing ever, but i visit many forums and it seems that many people are always doing test. I would just like to know why? I use media code YDEN000-T02-00 and RICOHJPN-R01-02 and have never had any problems. I will run a SUM 8 test on both written media and post back the results in hopes that someone will shed some light on them, thanks again and i have enjoyed reading the posts in this forum, it seems there are some very knowlegdeable people around here.


#8

Here is my first test PI/PO Sum 8 and a Sum 1
PX 716A
Firmware 1.04
MID: YDEN000-T02-00
PowerRec: ON
Autostragedy:ON
Taiyo Yuden Silver Thermal 8x DVD +R (supermediastore.com)
Burn speed was 8x using Nero 6.6




#9

nice scan. check the “Quality Scans” thread and the “FW 1.04” thread for comparisons.


#10

Thanks. When i check on quality scans posts it seems many have the Autostragedy : OFF, why would they do this?


#11

not all have AS off…most people were testing differences in write quality and trying to figure out what effect Auto-Strategy had on MIDs already in the FW database (if any effect at all).


#12

I do. Once I see good results across a few burns, there’s no reason not to keep getting that media. The only reason to switch would be if you can’t get that brand/manufacturer anymore, or if saving 10¢ per disc is vitally important to you.

Will tests with the same media on the same drive vary greatly?

Generally speaking, there’s usually very little variation. Sometimes a manufacturer will produce “bad batches” or move production somewhere else, or even change the dye they use (Verbatim!) - and sometimes the top & bottom disc on a spindle might not be as good as the ones in the middle - but you should expect consistency.

What is the actual “purpose” of testing? I have probably burnt 2000 dvds with various software with my Pio DVR 107 f1.21 and i have never tested ANY thing ever, but i visit many forums and it seems that many people are always doing test. I would just like to know why?

Depends who you talk to and how they regard their DVD writer. Remember the audiophiles who used to strive for 0.0000000001% Total harmonic distortion? No one could hear the difference between that and 0.01%, but to them the numbers mattered a lot. Some burner owners, especially here, take that same “hobbyist” tack and seek the Holy Grail of 0 PIE and 0 PIF.

I use media code YDEN000-T02-00 and RICOHJPN-R01-02 and have never had any problems.

Nor should you. Reading across the different burner hardware forums, you’ll see that almost all burners really like those two MIDs, and independent of which brand they are manufactured under (Memorex, Ritek, Maxell, Fuji, TY etc).

I will run a SUM 8 test on both written media and post back the results in hopes that someone will shed some light on them, thanks again and i have enjoyed reading the posts in this forum, it seems there are some very knowlegdeable people around here.

The ones you posted look really good. I’d be very happy with that burner/media combination.


#13

Great post, Geon, especially the illustrated examples. I used the burst test to finally determine that my first PX712 wasn’t up to spec despite moderately good PI/PO scans. The one disadvantage to the Burst test is that it doesn’t show PIF, and I believe PIF (as do consecutive errors, as you pointed out) has more to do with skipping/pixellation/slowdowns than PIE does. Although, running a Burst test plus SUM-1 shows a lot more useful information than SUM-8 + SUM-1 does.

Unfortunately, the industry specification for burn quality only includes 4 PIF and 280 PIE as max allowable, and there is no standard for allowable consecutive errors. At least as far as I know … somebody please prove me wrong?


#14

The DVD Recordable specifications state that a disk read at 1X speed will have less than 280 PI errors per 8 blocks when calculated over 8 ECC blocks, and less than 4 PO errors per block when calculated over 1 ECC block. And it should go without saying that there should be no uncorrectable errors at all.’’

http://drivel.com/dvd/

In every CDFreaks burner review you can find this information:

Download the ECMA 267 Standard for DVD-ROM, the ECMA 337 Standard for DVD+R/RW and the ECMA 338 Standard for DVD-R/RW at http://www.ecma-international.org if you want to look at the standards for yourself.

:iagree:


#15

Thank you so much for your response that is the kind of info. i was needing to hear :slight_smile:


#16

Hmm, just read it over again. I find it confusing, so stick to the ECMA Standards.


#17

GeoN - I’ve been wondering the same thing. From now on, I’m going to do Burst tests instead of SUM8 since the former paint a more complete picture.

erdoke - I just went through one of the PDFs (ECMA 337) and found no mention of POEs.


#18

Section 13.3 is the relevant section describing the makeup of the ECC rows and columns. An error in PO can be taken to mean that the checksum bytes read from the ECC block columns do not correspond to the ECC checksum that the drive calculated itself from reading recording frames. If it were rows, it would be PI checksums.

But you’re certainly correct that section 29.2 does not contain a value for acceptable ECC column (PO) errors, as it does for row errors.


#19

On re-reading my reply, I may have given the impression that scanning is just a hobbyist’s toy for the sole purpose of engaging in pissing contests. Hmm, well, that’s not what I meant to say at all…

I do scans of every disc I burn. Not because I want to post the best scan, but because I burn data - not movies - and I want to know if I can expect trouble reading this disc, despite what Nero “Verify Disc After Burn” says.

The minimum conclusion I’ve come to after reading CDFreaks’ consensus on scanning is that a disc with high PI or PO errors showing immediately after burning is more susceptible to becoming unreadable if it gets a tiny new scratch, whereas a Holy Grail candidate :slight_smile: might withstand the scratch much better (ie. still be readable).

Late edit: I use the “Zevia Standard” :bigsmile: for determining excellent, very good, good, and bad.
Late edit #2: Scratches are inevitable every time the disc is handled.


#20

perhaps the lack of emphasis on POEs is telling that they don’t necessarily affect readability. i’d like to see PIF scans of GeoN’s disc in order to make a better evaluation of the feasability of using the Burst test over sum8 and sum1 scans.