Official K-Probe Discussion (Tool for Scanning C1C2/PIPO)

[rdgrimes]

Ian, given the rather high error rate on that particular disc, a few C2 is not unexpected, is it? The only errors associated with TAO that I've seen are in CDSpeed, and they are "unreadable" sectors, not C2. but I do very little, if any, testing of TAO discs.
In any case, by all means, get a 52246S. Your error rates will be 1/2 what they are now.

[Ian]

Ian, given the rather high error rate on that particular disc, a few C2 is not unexpected, is it? The only errors associated with TAO that I've seen are in CDSpeed, and they are "unreadable" sectors, not C2. but I do very little, if any, testing of TAO discs.
In any case, by all means, get a 52246S. Your error rates will be 1/2 what they are now.

I suppose that was a bad example. I've seen those C2 errors even with Taiyo and Verbatim discs. Ones that had very low C1 errors. The C2 errors are always at the very end.

I see what you mean about the 52246S. If and when I add KProbe tests to our reviews, I'll probably switch to this drive.

[Dartman]

If the errors your seeing are at 56 minutes it's a flaw in the way the drive reads with Kprobe and they probably aren't really there. My drive just like yours with the same firmware does that all the time at 56 and it never shows up on the 52 when I test it again. I always use DAO though, I could try one in TAO and let you know what I get.

[KCK]

Ian:

My question on KProbe's behavior on TAO and multisession discs was posed in this thread

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 3713#63713

but only LiteOnGuy gave some answers for KProbe 1.1.9 in another thread; see my exchanges with LiteOnGuy following

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 4747#64747

It would be good if someone tested TAO and multisession discs with KProbe 1.1.12.

[Dartman]

Well it turns out my 48 has the latest firmware, it did a TAO Nero audio test cd with a max of 9 c-1 errors and no c-2 errors as read by my 52.
I saved the chart as a JPG if anyone wants to put it up. It did rise at the end but is still very good as far as I can see.

[rdgrimes]

I'm not able to post images here for some reason, but anyway I did a test and I get no errors on a TAO burn in KProbe 1.1.12, none in CDSpeed Quality test, but in Scandisc the unreadable sector appears at the end.

[MediumRare]

For what it's worth, after KCK's call for further information, I tried an audio disk with 26 tracks written TAO but not multisession. I wanted to try a few other things but got sidetracked and didn't post the results.



This is a zoomed portion with 2 track borders. They show up as regions with C1=0. There are no C2's. The statistics are for the entire disk, not just the zoomed portion. Scandisk was all green.
G

[Ian]

I'm not able to post images here for some reason, but anyway I did a test and I get no errors on a TAO burn in KProbe 1.1.12, none in CDSpeed Quality test, but in Scandisc the unreadable sector appears at the end.

Since the errors I'm seeing pop up at the very end, it makes me wonder if thats whats whats happening.

[rdgrimes]

The end-error occurs only in Scandisc, not in CDDr, Quality test, or KProbe. I deliberately used a 500MB image file for testing to eliminate the higher speed near the end, and the chance of any random errors. My opinion is that your errors are not due to TAO burning.

[cfitz]

Ian, with what drive(s) are you burning those TAO disc(s)? I see you posted test results measured by a 48125W, and you mentioned measuring with a 52246S, but I wasn't clear on what you used to burn the disc(s).

I suspect you are seeing TAO artifacts, but I'm not sure whether the artifacts are due to the writing or the reading. Based on what you and others have posted so far, I'd guess writing, based on the supposition that you wrote those discs with a non- LiteOn-6S series model, while everyone else is testing discs written by 6S series models that don't have the same issue(?)

cfitz

[Ian]

Ian, with what drive(s) are you burning those TAO disc(s)? I see you posted test results measured by a 48125W, and you mentioned measuring with a 52246S, but I wasn't clear on what you used to burn the disc(s).

A bunch of different drives. That one in particular was from a CIS writer.

[cfitz]

So you have seen the TAO anomaly (for lack of a better term/explanation for now) only on TAO discs burned in the CIS burner, or for TAO discs burned in other drives as well?

cfitz

[KCK]

KProbe v1.1.13 (released date: 2003/06/08 7:05 AM GMT) is available at

http://home.pchome.com.tw/cool/cdtools/

Release Notes v1.1.13: 1. Fixed Bug: 120 dpi issue ..., etc.

Also MInfo v1.4 has been upgraded "silently", so it's worth downloading as well.

Thank you, Karr Wang!

[KCK]

My initial experience with the latest release of KProbe v1.1.13 and MInfo v1.4 is mixed.

On my 1600*1200 notebook display under XP Pro, in Display Properties | Appearances | Font size I keep "Normal", but in Settings | Advanced | General | DPI Setting I have "Large size (120DPI)" (instead of the more usual "Normal size (96DPI)", for which no display problems occur).

The new release of MInfo v1.4 comes up in a "full" window (instead of a "clipped" window as for the old release), showing 6 items: "Disk Type" through "Cur. Speed", and two empty lines at the bottom. This suffices in practice, but if I want to see the burner model and "Drive Type", I can scroll up, in which case 7 items up to "Manufacturer" are shown. Well, if the default window size were only slightly taller, all the 8 items would fit, thus obviating the need for scrolling. Anyway, the current display is much better than previous ones.

In contrast, for KProbe v1.1.13, the Write Strategy | Setup window looks the same as before (i.e., it ends with "Auto Y-Axis Ma" on the left, and "Show Marks" on the bottom), and hence must be resized each time. Further, also the saved PNG files seem to have changed. In Windows' Paint, the current PNG file looks smaller (its graph size being identical to the one displayed in KProbe), and its right border cuts across the final letters shown in the first and fifth lines. I guess Karr Wang wanted to make PNG files more compact, but he cropped too much on the right.

Finally, I'm now getting about twice as many C1 errors on the disc which I used with previous versions. Maybe this is a fluke, but perhaps not only displays were changed, so other users may wish to check this aspect.

In general, I find it highly encouraging that Karr Wang keeps improving KProbe!

[dolphinius_rex]

As for the error testing differences, I've found that there are slightly *less* C1 errors being returned. But as this is a difference of 0.300 and 0.250 I'm not sure it's even worth mentioning.

If anyone's wondering, yes that was Taiyo Yuden media burned on my LiteON 48125W

Keep up the good work Mr. Wang! I'm still hoping for Jitter testing if you can find time

[KCK]

dolphinius_rex:

As I said, my increased C1 counts needn't mean anything.

Can you confirm my findings about saved PNG files being cropped on the right? I just used IE to open a saved PNG file on my XP Pro box, and "Windows Picture and File Viewer" displayed it similarly to Paint.

[dolphinius_rex]

they seem fine to me. I made to PNGs one with version 1.1.12 and one with 1.1.13 and they both came out 6KB, and 585 x 551 x 24BPP

Now I didn't do any testing before making the pics, so they are simply empty graphs...but I don't think it should matter, right?

EDIT: I just ran some actual tests, and did saved pics of those and the results were consistant with my previous results. No change in graph size, or positioning, not to mention negligable change in C1 errors.

KCK: My copy of MS Paint doesn't open .PNG's at all.... so I use Irfanview to open them (it's freeware and VERY versatile!)

[KCK]

My results differ significantly. For KProbe 1.1.12, my PNG file is 720x391 (as reported by Paint and ACDSee) and has 16005 bytes, whereas for KProbe 1.1.13, my PNG file is 585x343 and has 14856 bytes.

[dolphinius_rex]

VERY odd... I'm running Win2K by the way, so that explains why our MS paints differ.... still, ACDsee is good, I used to use it. Perhaps a third opinion???

[dolphinius_rex]

Small bug found: I think this bug goes all the way back to version 1.1.1 but I could be wrong. Basically, when you uncheck maximum for the testing speed, you can put ANY number in the box, say for example 72. So K-Probe attempts to read the CD-R at 72x with my LiteON 48x12x48x drive, and undoubtidly fails, however when I save the graphs and take a look at them, it reports the testing speed as 72x... I now this is only a minor bug, but can it be fixed?? I'd like the report to accuratly show the testing speed if possible. Thanks!

actually, it was rather humorous to see the report of my burner reading at 72x

[KCK]

dolphinius_rex:

I repeated your experiment by setting the reading speed at 72 for my LTR-48125W. The first run proceeded normally, with C1/C2 counts being similar to previous ones, and the saved PNG file contained "Speed: 72". I wouldn't call it a bug; KProbe simply reports the chosen speed. So what would you like KProbe to display in this case?

BTW, I'm not sure it's safe to use a reading speed higher than the maximum supported by a burner. Maybe it was pure coincidence, but my subsequent runs with the same disc showed massive C2 errors.

[dolphinius_rex]

what would I like it to display?? how about the average read speed for the test? I don't know if that's possible or not though.

Here's the thing. If I have Nero CD Speed restricting my CD Burner's read speed to 12x (just for example) and ask K-Probe to test at 40x, K-Probe will tell me it tested at 40x but I'll get results from an 8x test. Of course this assumes I don't notice the difference in test time, but I do tend to leave the room when I'm doing testing, as watching it during the whole testing procedure does get a little boring after a while LOL!

I also experienced higher C2 errors, but the disc was also REALLY bad, so I'm not sure if it was indicative of a problem. Anyways, it's not something I'd recommend doing for no reason anyways.

[MediumRare]

Just tried the new KProbe version (thanks for the tip, KCK).

The drive information has been augmented with the assigned letter and an additional digit. In my case, version 1.1.13 reports:

Code: Select all

Selected Drive: 2-1-0 J:LITE-ON LTR-48246S  SS0B

Previously:

Code: Select all

Selected Drive: 2-1 LITE-ON LTR-48246S  SS0B

My drive is secondary slave, hence 2-1. My guess is that the -0 is the SCSI ID.

The new MInfo 1.4 also shows 1.4 in the title bar now.

KProbe 1.1.13 and MInfo 1.4 do not work with NT4 (prior versions did). No drives are found: MInfo dies and the selector widget in Kprobe is blank.

The error counts haven't changed significantly with program version- I tried a good disk and my "crappy bleached audio disk" (CBAD) with C1max > 2400 and C2max > 300. The CBAD seems to have deteriorated further, however- ave C1 is ca. 10% greater and C2 20% higher than 8 weeks ago.

KCK:
It looks like MInfo now works the same with your system as it does for the rest of us. You aren't the only one to wish for a slightly (20%) larger standard window.

I verified your experience with window and PNG sizes by going the same route you did but using the highest resolution that my monitor didn't choke on (1280x1024).
The size of the generated PNGs apparently depends on the size of the main window and this in turn depends on the extent that system fonts (those depending on the dpi value) are used. The new version of KProbe apparently no longer uses system fonts in the main window, which is why it's now smaller your case. The setup dialog still does, and apparently the window size is calculated on the basis of "normal fonts" so that it is too small for the 120dpi fonts used and the information is clipped.

With Version 1.1.12, I got 720x391 for a 1-chart PNG using 1280x1024 and 120dpi. It wasn't clipped.

The size of the generated PNGs in 1.1.13 is independent of the resolution and agrees with what I've seen all along: 585x343 for 1 chart files. The number of bytes, of course, depends on details of the plots. Most of mine are ca. 6-8k. The y-size depends on the number of info lines and if the charts are combined or not, e.g. V1.1.6 did not show the manufacturer and had 585x328 PNGs. A 2-chart PNG is 585x551. Sizes determined with IE6 (maximized).

However, all these problems do not show up under XP if you request "large fonts" on the display panel, without changing "advanced" settings to 120 dpi. (Sorry if some of these panel names aren't quite right- I'm using a German version of XP). I don't really know what advantage there is to manually setting the 120 dpi fonts. I've had a some hideous problems in printing shared Excel tables under NT4 that result from my using large (120dpi) and another person having small (96dpi) fonts. I find the small fonts difficult to read at times, but had to switch for compatibility. Under XP, apparently, we can choose larger text without running into this problem unless we expliclity invoke it.
So why do that? (OK- I know that older windows don't have that option, so it's best to do the fonts cleanly).

G

[KCK]

MediumRare:

You were right on the spot for the high resolution display problems.

Here is what I did to check your ideas for KProbe v1.1.13 and MInfo v1.4.

On my 1600*1200 notebook display under XP Pro, in Display Properties | Appearances | Font size I chose "Large Fonts" (instead of "Normal"), and in Settings | Advanced | General | DPI Setting I chose "Normal size (96DPI)" (instead of my usual "Large size (120DPI)").

MInfo displayed as for my usual settings, i.e., acceptably well, although a slightly larger window would be better, just as you and many others have said.

The Write Strategy | Setup window of KProbe v1.1.13 had a correct size (maybe the same, but smaller fonts made everything visible), and the saved PNGs looked OK as well (due to the smaller font). The sizes for combined plots of 585x343 were the same as for my usual settings, and agreed with yours.

Thus KProbe displays correctly for "Large Fonts" and "Normal size (96DPI)". Unfortunately my display becomes unusable. My usual settings of "Font size Normal" and "Large size (120DPI)" are quite popular among users of high resolution displays. Hence I hope that Release Notes v1.1.x will repeat "1. Fixed Bug: 120 dpi issue"!

BTW, right now I can't access KProbe's homesite

http://home.pchome.com.tw/cool/cdtools/

[dolphinius_rex]

I guess that would explain why I have no problems with the graphs since I run standard font sizes on 1600x1200 resolutions.

I too can't access the site, it appears to be missing..... ACK!