Media Review

Discussion in 'CD/DVD/BD Blanks' started by Sabertooth, Jan 15, 2012.

  1. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    If only you had tried to be diplomatic in your previous messages, you did not. Rather, even though I clearly bent over backwards to accomodate your view point and be supportive of it, you chose to be insulting and manipulative.

    Please, you continue to take me for a fool. All references were clearly about my presentation of the data. Need I also explain why the use of the car salesman reference? I ask you to stop being dishonest again.

    Since when does generalizing (that's what you did) serve as a clarification? You're a long way from that mark.

    You are more than welcome to continue to participate but I must insist that you refrain from personal attacks and exercise more caution in your paraphrasing. I'm honestly baffled why you would chose such an unfriendly, no, hostile response to my request to look at the source of your graphs. I know you could easily make a (legitimate) case using references and honest tactics for why people should avoid OQ's because I know I could.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2012
  2. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    My reaction to your demeaning "Ooo, I love pretty graphs" was simply out of frustration. I've run into that sentiment too often, and given up on trying to debate the merits of media quality testing. That testing was done at FTI's factory by Dr. Derk Jan Adelerhof, their chief technology officer. He's one of the pioneers involved in the invention of optical disc recording technology originally with Philips R&D. Has patents in the development of Sci-fi level technology like squids. A serious scientist. Not known for flights of fancy. He has been applying his genius to improving the Blu-ray disc design.

    I should have come up with a better allegory to try to illustrate why my interpretation of your data differs from yours. Not for a moment did I think you were intentionally trying to misrepresent your results. Nor do I think you a fool. I believe that intelligent people can disagree without hurling personal insults like dishonest, hateful. Please?

    I honestly was not trying to be contentious about brand. There is an understandable lack of intimate knowledge of the politics and sales structure of the optical media business among consumers. It seemed an opportune moment to try to spell it out clearly to avoid miscommunication going forward.

    I do wish I had not thrown out the Merax(Optodisc) media I was trying 1 to 1.5 years ago. They started failing very quickly, and I did not take the time to quantify the results. I would advise caution to anyone who has anything burned to them. It might be wise to keep an eye on them.
     
  3. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    I like you deanwitty, I think you're an intelligent person and there is no excuse for someone with your abilities to resort to the tactics you did. I appreciate your measured response to my concerns about your presentation. We can definitely talk and, if not be friends, at least have respect for one another.

    I'm not sure how you get to demeaning from that comment (especially after I explained what I meant by it)? (but it's not that important either).

    Thank you for the citation, I was really hoping for a source I could dig into the data and qualifications. I'm completely positive that if you did dig into Dr. Adelerhof's data/results, you will most certainly find a section where they discuss the limitations and what they feel you can and can't reasonably infer from their data as this would be standard for any professional study.

    Let me explain further. Please, understand that graphs serve one purpose, to present the data in a way that highlights certain aspects of the data set. As such a graph can bring out trends and patterns that may not otherwise be obvious. That however is the honest use of graphs (as I'm sure Dr. Adelerhof's graphs are). A dishonest person can easily use a graph to completely misrepresent the results by manipulating the graphs parameters and selective presentation of those parameters. As I said, I could take the graph you presented and manipulate it to show almost no difference in the two media types simply by using two different scales and not providing those scales on the graph. It would appear that the two disc are much more similar in properties. Yes, this would be dishonest (in our context but not necessarily always) but it's done all the time in marketing. If marketing were the source of your graph (Falcon Media is a manufacturer of media?), I hope you can understand that I would be much more sceptical? Please, accept my apology if my scepticism of graphs translated in any way to demeaning you.

    Edit: Might I also point out that the graphs are not of any media contained in my study, so their relevance to the discussion might also be questioned.

    You feel that since I don't agree with you that somehow I must not understand your point. I do understand your point and I went out of my way to qualify my conclusions to accomodate what are legitimate concerns (separated from the hyperbole). That said, you have to accept what is my opinion and use reason, references, and logic to change that opinion. I assure you I have an open mind and am open to changing it for the right reasons (do you?).

    Shady tactics are always disarmed by shining a light on them. If you use tactics like that I will point them out for what they are. Please, select your words (epecially with regard to paraphrasing) more carefully.

    Yes, I said you had an axe to grind. That is your agenda. Look, having an agenda is okay and I agree that the Optical Quantum are inconsistent in their quality. But you could absolutely have made that point without one reference to car salesmen or misquoting me, etc.

    I'm more than happy to have a discussion on the merits.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2012
  4. deanwitty

    deanwitty Active Member

    I'm afraid that those tests and the graphs I posted were initially released strictly at a professional media industry personnel eyes-only level, and at least a passing familiarity with the methodology, machinery, computer programs and BDA book spec standards was presumed. There was no reason to explain the standards adhered to in this testing, it was not a text book on factory BD-R testing. My original response, though needlessly curt, was honest. I'm sure you could gain a deeper insight into that testing that might help put your mind at ease with just a little research on the topic :). Its interesting stuff, I do not think you would find it to be time wasted.

    Please do not forget that you do not know me personally? I made the mistake of posting without keeping this in mind. What you see as "tactics" would have been seen very different if you knew me. My bad. Too casual with my responses.

    In the unlikely event you are not just teasing me about the graphs' relevance, they obviously offer testing results at the highest level that help explain the limited longevity of your Riteks. Longevity is affected by initial burn quality, materials/manufacturing quality, and storage conditions. The red line you see in those graphs is the BDA book spec standard that all BD-R's are SUPPOSED to meet. Every disc from every manufacturer is supposed to meet these standards to give those discs the burn quality and playback compatibility that the association has defined as the minimum required. Riteks start off well outside that spec and are that much closer to reaching an error level where playback is compromised. And if you were teasing me, don't I feel silly for going on at length about this :doh::).

    I appreciate you not raising an eyebrow about my choice to include mention of Merax discs in a thread titled "Media review". I thought it rather on-topic in a thread discussing BD-R longevity.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012
  5. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Okay, point taken. I do need to do a lot more looking into what you presented. That said you only weaken your argument by using proprietary information that can't be independently verified. You have to assume that anything you cite as evidence for your assertions can be questioned not only with regard to relevance but also with respect to an analysis of what's presented. Just because I've never seen your graph before in no way serves to show that I don't have the complete capability to understand what's presented including a full understanding of the limitation and nefarious uses of same. Look at it as a learning experience for me and approach it as a teacher would and I will have no disrespect for such an approach. We all benefit, you gain respect for your understanding of the material and the rest of us learn something.

    I would only be teasing you in order to lessen the impact of my challenge, the points I'm making are entirely valid. I could literally give you pages of valid objections, contentions, and just reasonable questions about graphs like you have presented and it's not necessary to disparage the graphs at all because they would all be (valid) questions that can't be answered with out examining the data.

    An excellent take away and a good place for us to conclude this part of our discussion. I would like to suggest that we end on an upbeat and positive note by saying the following...

    I expect nothing less from you than the highest standard of debate etiquette in your interaction with me and, in return, I promise to strive to meet the same high standard of respectful consideration in all my dealings with you.

    I look forward to more productive discussions/debates with you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012