Hi DrageMester, pleased to see you participate to this thread
If by "it" you mean "what you're looking for" so yes I see your point !
Yes that's a real interresting point... just like "Do you see the half-empty or half-full glass?" If you're thirsty, you may see the first one. If you're not maybe one or the other.

I said that if I initially posted this problem, it was because I am testing a drive, so in this way I am not "thirsty", I just want to be as objective as possible. So I don't expect anything from the drive tested. I just want to relate how the drive behaves with such disc. What can I consider for criterias in such purpose ?

First I do know that I am not able to reproduce the real conditions to compare my quality scans to ECMA standards but I can't ignore them and have to refer to them. It gives the limits of acceptability (I don't know if it's the good word).

An other criteria is the actual readability, showed by RTR which comes to complete other tests. Considering that most drives have an error correction that supports higher values than those given by ECMA standards, it's problematic because actual readability doesn't mean neither good nor bad quality. It depends on the drive used for the RTR. (I just want to show here my way of thinkng).

I don't understand why such a test tend to be disregarded. Yes it can't be sure at 100% but which test can ?

I think that since we want to use RTR, because of the actuality of the test, among many for a review or as one revelant and single test, the features (sensitivity, speeds) of the drive used for the test have to be the same. This drive have to represente something as so-so (as Franksoy said) It's obvious that such choices have already been made by some users and especially by the «reviewers».

Except BenQ drives, NEC, and liteon LiteON SOHD-167T (with patched firmware, used in CDR-Info reviews), are there other drives that could fulfil RTR needs ? It would be nice to make out a list.