🚀 go-pugleaf

>>The results from my drives are:
>I slightly doubt your test.
>
>>Ultraplex
>>Average DAE Speed: 22.1x
>>DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>Known good drive.
>
>>AOpen CD924E
>>Average DAE Speed: 6.9x
>>DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>I believe all versions of this drive are not good at DAE by data
>mismatch.
>

I must admit that this drive's behaviour is a bit weird for DAE.
I have been able to do perfect DAE at 13.5x with it (extracted track twice
with CD Copy and compared them with fc/b).
However when reading raw sectors without any delay (as in the benchmark)
then it has a very hard time finding those sectors which explains the
strange graph.
The only thing that is wrong with the DAE quality is the offset.
The offset is about 2000 bytes too early. This means that the 2000 first
bytes from each track are actually the 2000 last bytes from the previous
track.
Problems like this cannot be detected by CD Speed.

Anyway, I never have to use jitter correction with this drive.
So unless the cd is badly damaged I always get perfect copies.

>>Ricoh MP6200A IDE
>>Average DAE Speed: 6.0x
>>DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>This is what tells me something is wrong. No ROM version to date can
>produce reliable DAE on this drive.

Tested with v2.20.

The DAE quality test is very simple. CD Speed reads the first, middle and
last 800 sectors from a disk and writes them to HD (audio.raw).
Then it reads those sectors again and compares them with the file.
If no differences are found then it gives a 10 for DAE quality.
This is the method that's mostly used for DAE testing (similar to the fc /b
method).

IMO the most reliable DAE quality test is when you extract tracks from a
known source but for obvious reasons this is impractical.

Anyway, if you have any suggestions for a more reliable DAE test, let me
know :)

Erik

btw. you can listen to the extracted sectors from the last test by opening
the audio.raw with a wav editor like Cool Edit (44100Hz / stereo / 16 bit /
PCM-Intel).

----------------------------------------------------------------
email: erikd@glo.be
CD-ROM benchmark: http://user.glo.be/~erikd/cdspeed.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:21:56 +0200, "Erik" <erikd@REMOVETHISglo.be>
wrote:

>>>The results from my drives are:
>>I slightly doubt your test.

>The only thing that is wrong with the DAE quality is the offset.
>The offset is about 2000 bytes too early. This means that the 2000 first
>bytes from each track are actually the 2000 last bytes from the previous
>track.
>Problems like this cannot be detected by CD Speed.
>Anyway, I never have to use jitter correction with this drive.
>So unless the cd is badly damaged I always get perfect copies.
2000 eh? That's so wierd. It should be a multiple of 2352. 2000 sounds
like it's an intentional torpedo inserted by the manufacturer,
probably for copyright restrictions. Test my Panasonics to see if they
have any offset problems. Since they compare with the Plextors, I'd
say there's no problem.

>>>Ricoh MP6200A IDE
>>>Average DAE Speed: 6.0x
>>>DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>>This is what tells me something is wrong. No ROM version to date can
>>produce reliable DAE on this drive.
>Tested with v2.20.
I tested it with an older version and I probably haven't tested it
again. With these Panasonic drives, I could care less how other units
work. I recall too many complaints about DAE, mostly "I upgraded and
it still don't work..."

>The DAE quality test is very simple. CD Speed reads the first, middle and
>last 800 sectors from a disk and writes them to HD (audio.raw).
>Then it reads those sectors again and compares them with the file.
>If no differences are found then it gives a 10 for DAE quality.
Sounds like the test to me. I use 3 samples though. Some others have
tried more reads too.

>IMO the most reliable DAE quality test is when you extract tracks from a
>known source but for obvious reasons this is impractical.
If you have the Plextor, compare against that. It's the standard for
now.

>Anyway, if you have any suggestions for a more reliable DAE test, let me
>know :)
Your test sounds pretty good. I recall some of the tracks DAEing
correctly and some not. Maybe you just need to try more disks.

One major problem with the 6200A is that it doesn't do PIO3Mode1 so
you can use it by DMA transfers. Everything is PIO and slow.
--
-CJS severachAATTjacksonmi.DOT.NOSP@M.DOT.com
*The best and most defect free CDRW IDE CDROMs for DAE are the Panasonic 24x CR585/7B and 32x CR586/8B
*The best SCSI CDROMs for DAE are the Plextor 12, 12/20, and 14/32
*Most IDE drives do DAE poorly, most SCSI drives do DAE well
*If you're looking for IDE, you must get the right one and avoid the rest
*The best DAE software is WinDAC at http://members.aol.com/schmelnik/dac.html
*IDE Bus Mastering (BM) works best with Intel chips on Win95B or with Triones

On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 15:14:01 -0700, Mike Richter
<mrichter@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Chris Severance wrote:
>> >Ricoh MP6200A IDE
>> >Average DAE Speed: 6.0x
>> >DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>> This is what tells me something is wrong. No ROM version to date can
>> produce reliable DAE on this drive.
>That may be true for the 6200a, but I assure you that the 6210s with f/w
>2.20 does produce perfect DAE at maximum speed. I determined that by
>finding bit-level match with extraction from my Plextor 4+.
I've heard this before. I'm surprised and annoyed they don't take the
same care in making the IDE as the SCSI. The internals should be
almost the same except for the interface chips. It's even possible for
both the IDE and SCSI interface chips to be made by the same company:
Adaptec.
--
-CJS severachAATTjacksonmi.DOT.NOSP@M.DOT.com
*The best and most defect free CDRW IDE CDROMs for DAE are the Panasonic 24x CR585/7B and 32x CR586/8B
*The best SCSI CDROMs for DAE are the Plextor 12, 12/20, and 14/32
*Most IDE drives do DAE poorly, most SCSI drives do DAE well
*If you're looking for IDE, you must get the right one and avoid the rest
*The best DAE software is WinDAC at http://members.aol.com/schmelnik/dac.html
*IDE Bus Mastering (BM) works best with Intel chips on Win95B or with Triones

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:48:48 +0200, "Erik" <erikd@glo.be> wrote:

>CD Speed version 0.7
>
>The main new feature is the DAE speed and quality test.
>Just like with the data test, the speed is displayed in
>a graph.
>
>I started a new list with the results from this test.
>If you send your results to me, include the cdspeed.dat
>file with some basic info on the drive.
>
>The results from my drives are:
>
>Ultraplex
>Average DAE Speed: 22.1x
>DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>
>AOpen CD924E
>Average DAE Speed: 6.9x
>DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>
>Ricoh MP6200A IDE
>Average DAE Speed: 6.0x
>DAE quality: 10 (perfect DAE)
>
>
>Erik
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>email: erikd@glo.be
>CD-ROM benchmark: http://user.glo.be/~erikd/cdspeed.htm
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Re: Ricoh MP6200A
I have this drive with firmware 2.20 and perfect DAE is an unknown
quantity.  On many occassions if you extract 2 files from the same
audio track, the files will be different (depending on the audio
track).  I would be far from confident in saying that the MP6200A does
perfect DAE. 

Chris Severance wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:21:56 +0200, "Erik" <erikd@REMOVETHISglo.be>
> wrote:
>
> >IMO the most reliable DAE quality test is when you extract tracks from a
> >known source but for obvious reasons this is impractical.
> If you have the Plextor, compare against that. It's the standard for
> now.
> 
> >Anyway, if you have any suggestions for a more reliable DAE test, let me
> >know :)
> Your test sounds pretty good. I recall some of the tracks DAEing
> correctly and some not. Maybe you just need to try more disks.
> 

I think he meant compare the DAE with original data, burn a known
track(s)
DAA back and compare, but that is just a test on a known good disk
rather than
average CD reading 
 if burnt on a CDR a good result would suggest the system works well
with all sources
a bad result would prove nothing about silver CD reading

 a better test would probbaly involve random blocks for an extended
period,noting the blocks,
then reread those some blocks in random order, then repeat , then do a
new set of blocks
until user gets bored;-)
 the random blocks list should have the very first and last explicitly
included
 
[ sorry about the continued crosspost something is wrong with my direct
mail]  

-- 
mordant@wantree.com.au
Disclaimer: all care taken, some truth may have slipped through
Theme Tune: en-n-ui,en-n-ui,en-n-ui,en-n-ui ("Amazin Gracie")