Sorry for my poor English, I think it shall be the "last sample".

Now you're being unfair!

Those claims are backed up by jitter scans performed in Plextor drives that show absolutely no jumps in jitter, or sometimes jumps to lower jitter when the BenQ reports a jump to higher jitter.

The claims are also backed up by high-speed scans performed in other drives showing no increase in PIE levels towards the end of the disc.

So there is relevant data to suggest that the BenQ drives are misreporting jitter!

The data we are seeing here suggest that the BenQ drives are not misreporting jitter, but that doesn't mean that all contrary data has suddenly ceased to exist, or that anyone who disagrees with you is in a state of denial!

If all posts had to contain "irrefutable" evidence, there wouldn't be more than a handful of posts on this entire forum.

There is also nothing "irrefutable" about the scans we're seeing here - they are just additional pieces to the puzzle.

If you look carefully at yourself in the mirror, maybe you as an observer also have your own "bias".

Perhaps it would be better to continue this particular discussion in this thread: Which Drive Do I Trust?

Regarding Plextor jitter reporting, I wasn't aware of those circumstances. But I have to admit that, now with both Liteons and Benqs generally in agreement, I would be particularly suspicious of the results of a drive that reports LOWER jitter levels when other drives will report just the opposite. This comes down to a 'which to believe' situation, but all that I've seen thus far suggests that Benqs and Liteons show very similar trends in jitter, so that leaves Plextor in the minority. Obviously more comparisons will be needed, but I'm finding an obvious trend of similar jitter reporting between Liteon and Benq.

Regarding the high speed scans not showing increased in PIE towards the edge, I'm not sure I understand how that relates.

scoobiedoobie, I have posted my answer here in the thread that I suggested we use for continuing this discussion before it gets more off-topic than it already is.

I'm not saying all posts need to contain irrerefutable evidence nor am I saying what we see here is irrerfutable.
What I am saying is we are now able to see that the Lite-On is in semi agreement with what the BenQ is reporting and that is at least evidence to show that two very different drives with two very different softwares are coming up with the same conclusions, nothing more, nothing less.
And yes, I do have my own biases but I do try to be objective in my assesment.
I have put forth, when others have dismissed the BenQ reporting as "crap", that the drive is reporting only what it is programmed to report (in the thread you referenced).
I have had concerns for awhile, and I have made these concerns know in private areas of these fourms that I once belonged too, that without other drives having the ability to report jitter levels that it was just too easy to dismiss the BenQ as just being a "poor scanner" and that bothers me without a way to demonstrate the reason why.
The Plextor was brought up as "evidence" of why the BenQ should be dismissed, now we have another opinion and it is not agreeing with the Plextors.
This makes none of us right or any of us wrong. It is just further "figures" to consider...

I agree, this tangent of discussion is off topic in this thread. However, this piece of software is intriguing and is the vehicle responsible for dirving this line of discussion.
I will post no further about this here.

I suspect that there may be some mechanical irregularities pertaining to that disc or your drive or both. More tests with quality discs are needed to reach a conclusion.

Verbatim branded MCC 03RG20
Burned on LG GSA-H10N @ 16x
pic 1: DVDScan Jitter test on Lite-On SHM-165H6S.
pic 2: CD/DVD Speed quality test on BenQ DW1655.
DCJit spec set to 90 (9% as per Ecma-279 standard)

Due to scaling factor of each program, first impression would be that the drives see this disc differently ie...jitter result.
Close inspection shows both drives with a jump in jitter level just past the 0.5 GB mark.
Again, my conclusion is both drives are seeing the same pattern of jitter.

DVDScan program suggestion:
Allow scaling adjustment on each test type per user setting.

My first and last impression is that the two drives see the jitter differently.
The LiteOn drive reports a 4% jitter jump, and the BenQ shows jitter staying around the same average although a little fuzzy as usual.

I think you're seeing what you want to see with your close inspection.
There are plenty of example scans on the forum of BenQ showing a 2-4% jump in jitter, but this isn't one of those examples!

No one is saying that the drives see exactly the same things, just as different scanning capable drives report different results based on their interpretation of the scans.
What you will see if you look closely is the "rises and dips" in the general pattern across the disc is similar to what the Lite-On is showing.

Both drives show the sharp rise just past the 0.5 GB mark, both drives show a rise peaking at around the 1.0 GB mark, both drives show another rise around the 2.3 GB mark with dips just after both of these rises.

You may of course draw your own conclusions...

I also see a sharp drop at the .5 point in the benq scan

Verbatim MCC03RG20 burned on Pio111@12x.
Scanned with 165P6S
1st pic is the PI/PIF test in Kprobe then 3 pics with jitter scans at 4x, 6x, 8x. The interesting part is that there seems to be quite a diffrence between 4x, 6x scans and the 8x one. And overall jitter seems too high for this media.

Nope, I've already done at least 10 comparisons with other discs and 6x/8x is clearly reporting erratic jitter levels vs. 1-4x. Here's my 4th posted comparison in this thread if you still doubt the trend, all of my comparisons show similar results. The Benq and Liteon at 4x show basically the exact same thing, while the 8x Liteon is all over the place. This makes a particularly good comparison as the jitter on this disc is so flat overall. The drive can play a role and no two drives are exactly alike, but, if the drive tests in agreement to my Benqs at 1-4x and with erratic fluctuations at 6x/8x, I really doubt the drive itself is the reason. Because of this I believe it's probably primarily related to the fact that 6x/8x test at CAV vs. the CLV of 1-4x.

Benq scan, then 4x and 8x Liteon scan:

That's one of the lower jitter I've seen in a DVD.
Besides, CMC isn't the best.

@ Wind

I confirm that with the test firmware YV6M only works the PI/PIF test.
Can you make also permanent, in the next version, the SmartBurn OHT setting?

[OT]It's THE lowest jitter I've ever seen in a burned disc (my previous low was 6.62% with Prodisc R02 that burns awesome). This particular disc is a Staples brand, I accidentally burned it at 4x. The PI errors are much higher in this batch than any other AE1 I'ved used, but the jitter and PIFs are excellent just as my other AE1 media is.[OT]

Wind- I don't understand this. I realize that the sums won't be the same as what KProbe shows, because the coverage is less- but I can't derive the displayed value from the measurements. I've attached the measurements (copied from the scrolled results window) as a zip file. There are 7582 samples and the sum of all PI-values is 17702. The value shown in the display box is 5535 and this is neither value.

One further remark on DVD-Scan: the program seems to have a "focus" problem. I was in working in a text editor and pressed the "Esc" key and a DVD-scan test running in the background aborted with "User Break!"

G

Yes, it was a disc I already burned. But so was the previous sample in this thread. I think this information is not completley worthless, though.

A further test at 2x (instead of 8x) didn't show the previous problem, so I did a comparison of FE/TE measurements before and after burning a disc (2x, interval 1000h: see attached diagram). I used Excel for the comparison. You can see that TE is almost identical and the FE results are similar, but with higher values for the unburned disc.

Appart from this check, the FE/TE test probably is most useful for unburned media. The German computer magazine c't for example measures axial focus error (AxialN) and radial tracking deviations (RadialN) for unburned media as part of their physical quality index. I don't know if these quantites are the same as FE/TE- but they're important in that they can be determined as a characteristic of the media and not the combination of media and burner.

G

Here are further results from the disc in the FE/TE comparison.
Verbatim printable MCC004 (made by CMC), burned @16x with my 165P6S (MV94) with HT on, OHT on, OS on, burning time 6:33. The transfer rate was impeccable @16x reading and is not shown.

I scaled and copied the 4x jitter test results into the CD_Speed recording diagram to see if any of the structure relate to dips from OHT. BenQ drives often see a jump in jitter at ca. 0.9 GiB where the big dip in the recording speed curve occurs. This behaviour is not apparent here. However, I don't have a BenQ drive to check these results...

The scanning speed affects the jitter results somewhat for this disc. I've added an Excel-based comparison for the available speeds. 1x and 4x are almost identical, 2x is somewhat lower. The 6x and 8x results have a different shape. Bases on this comparsion, 4x seems to be the sweet spot.

G

This is just the same as I have found in my comparisons, the 1, 2, and 4x follow each other very closely, and the 2x tended to be very slightly lower than 1x and 4x. 6x and 8x were erratic and did not follow very closely to the pattern, not necessarily each other even. Just as importantly, the 1-4x results have been in general agreement with my Benq jitter tests, while the 6x/8x haven't. 4x is clearly the way to go IMO. Nice job with the comparisons, BTW.

Another nice thing about testing the jitter with the Liteon, even as you greatly decrease the samples (Interval) the tests follow the trend of the tests with large sample amounts. I mention this because, when testing with a Benq and using a 'quick test' in CD-DVD Speed with a limited number of samples, the jitter levels being reported are erratic and not very accurate compared to the full tests. I've been sticking with 4x (1000 interval) for recent tests, it's a good compromise between testing time and retaining good resolution in the test. Going to fewer samples and you run a greater risk of missing a random spike in the jitter.

Try this for the SHW-1635S:
http://home.pchome.com.tw/myhome/zwi...re/YV6NWIN.EXE

Mirror:
http://upload.cdfreaks.com/liteon/te...re/YV6NWIN.EXE

"Forbidden" 503 error, Wind.

165P6S - #1 and #2N
MV94- All On
Verbatim - MCC03 RG20 -R @ x16

The following are jitter scans with different interval rates, but same speed, x4
- appears to be little difference, on an average basis, between set intervals
- time to scan and min/max were as follows:
800/4 = 288 sec - 116/104
1000/4 = 144 sec - 115/104
4000/4 = 40 sec - 112/104
8000/4 = 29 sec - 112/105

- last jitter scan performed with different physical drive, but same model, disk, firmware

(WIND: now you can see why some of the scans looked, ummm, outstanding, relative to others...)

Keep the drive with the last scan! It means the drive having excellent readability.

Yeah? - ya think?
- can you give me special LiteOn Employee "RMA" on #1?
- teehee

I am sick of where I uploaded the files, just find somewhere else......