Why KProbe2 instead of Nero CD-DVD?

Why does everyone here use KProbe2 scans instead of the disc quality test in Nero CD-DVD Speed? Is Kprobe just generally better or more accurate for Litey drives?

One thing that bugs me about KProbe2 is that it doesn’t show the graph as the scan progresses, so you have to wait until the full scan is done to realize if you have a bad burn or not. Sometimes you can tell just with the total number of errors or by intelligently guessing from the rolling average, but I wish it would show the graph dynamically. Failing that, have a column for PIF Max instead of just Current, Avg, and Total.

I am posting a Kprobe I just did on a Sony 8x DVD-R. Very disappointed. I had noticed my Benq (SONY08D1) media weren’t as great as I initially thought, so I burned this disc using genuine Sony which so far have been VERY clean for me. This scan was perfect except for one region with a seriously ugly continuous cluster of PIF errors.

Is this a crap burn? Should I definitely re-burn? I am giving the disc to a professor with a set-top that may be old; I want to make sure it doesn’t skip. Damn media problems…

#1) Tradition, Kprobe was one of the very first C1/C2 PI/PIF scanning applications available for end-users.
#2) LiteOn support: This is the LiteOn forum, Kprobe is for LiteOn drives. The community supports Kprobe. :slight_smile:
#3) Personal preference: Kprobe interface and display is nice and clean.

About realtime graph display: the author of Kprobe found that enabling realtime graph display could skew or distort results. Hence it is not recommended.

About your scan: no idea, why don’t you post it.


oops. Thanks. Here is the scan.

That’s an excellent burn. Don’t worry about the small PIF cluster.
It doesn’t exceed 4, which is good.

You sure? I thought that if you had more than four PIF errors in a row than it doesn’t matter what the max is and four consecutive errors are uncorrectable. I also heard it’s generally a good idea to avoid any areas of solid red as it can result in disc skipping during playback.

But you probably know way more than me judging by your uber post count, so I guess I should just feel happy with it and move on? I wish my burns on my regular spindle media were that good (apart from the PIF cluster).

As an aside, why is it that sometimes a certain brand-name media is better than another brand name, when the media code is identical? For example, if my BenQ’s are actually SONY08D1’s, why are they consistently worse than the Sony-branded SONY08D1’s?

I have noticed that if you view the BenQs edge-on, sometimes it looks a bit rough or like the printable-optical surface (whatever you call it) that’s sandwiched in between is a bit wavy or screwy near the edge. The Sony discs look more professionally put together.

Here’s a quote from our reviews :wink:

But what are the PIF errors that K-Probe reports? They are Parity Inner Failures, meaning errors left after PI correction. Only the ECMA 337 standard describes the Parity Inner Failures. So how is a Parity Inner Failure defined? Here are what ECMA 337 states:
“If a row of an ECC Block as defined in 13.3 contains more than 5 erroneous bytes, the row is said to be “PI-uncorrectable”.”
In theory an ECC block may in the worst case have 208 PIF since every ECC block is 208 rows long. But the ECMA 337 standard goes further and specifies the max amount of accepted PI Failures (uncorrectable errors) allowed on a good disc:
“- In any ECC Block the number of PI-uncorrectable rows should not exceed 4.”
This means that when the PIF sum is set to 1 the maximum error value should not exceed 4. The theoretical maximum value for PIF is 208 errors.
But what makes a disc unreadable? A POF (Parity Outer Failure) error will make the disc unreadable, but K-Probe does not display the POF’s.

About your media: Are the SONY brand discs made in Japan? (according to the packaging).
Discs with identical MIDs can actually be manufactured at completely different locations and have different quality properties.
Daxon manufactures discs using SONY technology.
The BenQ brand discs will definitely be Daxon made discs.

I have some SONY08D1 discs made in Japan by SONY and also some SONY08D1 discs made in Taiwan by Daxon.
Both types are very good quality.

Well that technical excerpt is a bit hard to follow, but I guess max 4 in an ECC block is the rule I should follow. What I’m not sure about is the PIF Sum setting of 1 in KProbe. Does that mean it counts each ECC block as a separate window, and then displays the number of PIF errors in that block? But for PI errors, it counts 8 consecutive blocks?

About the discs: The Sonys appear to be “Made in Taiwan” as it says on the jewel case. The Benqs, not sure, but Daxon sounds right, if Daxon = crap.

Or perhaps the BenQ quality control is just bad, if my “real” Sonys are also made by Daxon. Then again I only had a 5-pack of real Sony’s, each in a jewel box. Maybe the individually packaged discs usually have a higher standard of quality, but in spindles the companies scrimp and since it’s expected to get some bad apples they assemble the media cheaply?

I will definitely not be buying 100-packs of anything in the future, until I make a good pairing between burner and media. Any DVD+R recommendations? Besides Taiyo Yuden which is unaffordable.

For PI Errors “SUM8” sums the amount of errors in 8 consecutive ECC blocks and displays it.
For PI Failures “SUM1” sums the amount of errors in each ECC block and displays it.
Our general guideline is that PIE should not exceed 280 and PIF should not exceed 4.

You can further analyze the disc’s quality by performing a 16x transfer rate reading test on the disc. If the graph is smooth, the disc is easily readible and it is a good burn.

You can read the full explanation in our reviews, such as on this page: http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/179/5

The BenQ SONY08D1 discs (made by Daxon) that I have are very good quality and will burn at 16x easily on my NEC 3500A. The first couple of discs off of the top of my 50 spindle were defective though…

By the way, do you burn SONY08D1 at 8x or 4x? I have found 4x generally works out better, but maybe it was luck. I did have one disc that burned much better than most of my 4x burns, and as luck would have it I burned that one at 8x. Weird.

All my scans are done at 4x of course.

Ah: just saw you burned SONY08D1’s at 16x. Did you have to use OmniPatcher to do that? I guess I could try it – I just read that chemically, discs are often meant to be burned at the speed they are sold at. Maybe I really should burn at 8x?

Unfortunately my SOHW-1673S doesn’t seem to love these discs very much. I’ve seen some people post scans of Verbatim (MCC) 16x +R’s and they look absolutely Taiyoyuheavenly.

Here is a sample of one of my BenQ discs burned at 4x. You don’t get that weird PI peak partway through, do you? Probably not on your NEC. I get that on EVERY disc I burn from this spindle, but I didn’t use to get them (on the same spindle’s discs) with my old 1633S with BS0K firmware.

Hmmm well this thread should be moved to the Media Testing/Identifying Software forum.

A few things for you to consider:
Your scan directly above of the SONY08D1 disc burnt at 4x on the LiteOn looks acceptable.
BenQ 1620 generally has better writing quality than the LiteOn 1673S.
In many cases with a quality drive, 8x media burns better at 8x compared to 4x.

-grin- so you want to see what a BAD scan looks like eh? - grin-

well, I’m clearly off-topic here but couldn’t resist : this is a freshly burned DVD+R “movie style” 8x , by a 812S@832S[CG5G]…

this is the WORST scan I have EVER EVER seen :Z

those MCC003 were supposedly “good ones” (Mitsubishi blah blah), well I think they may originate directly from a garbage bin IMHO (burned 3 of them , same thing… average at 4x & 2x, “born-dead” at 8x)