Hi Franz
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by franz99 What we need is to put both together |
Do you realise that these two articles have tested different drive
models? Every model from a given manufacturer (and even each
unit!) scans differently. So it doesn't make much sense.
Besides, the great aspect of
Dee's article is to explain very clearly (IMO) that this search for an "accurate" scanner (= close to CATS, because as
DrageMester and
Dakhaas explain above
we-are-not-measuring-errors-on-a-disc when scanning) is vain, and even totally useless.
Scanning with end-user drives has only one 100% legitimate use which is to
compare discs/burns. Disc/burn A scans better than disc/burn B. Period. Our end-user drives are too unreliable scanners for any other purpose, without extensively comparing burns
first. When you've done lots of comparisons with a given scanner (and I mean
unit), then you can start drawing significant conclusions about the "absolute" quality of your discs, not before. Put differently,
get to know your scanner (as long as it's consistent and not too looney), it will be far more useful than trying to find a drive manufacturer/model that would be more "accurate". If a cheap burner out there could approach the precision of CATS, do you think the big companies would need CATS?
I'm more and more suprised that this quest for "accuracy" keeps on constantly popping up, after all the discussions that take place at so many sites (and very extensively here at CDFreaks
- see links hereunder
). This is an irrealistic, unsound approach to scanning with end-user drives.
Must reads:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=185916 http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=163379 http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=167693 http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=167758
Have fun!