Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dee-27 It became clear to me that while the BenQ drive could scan the media it had burned quite well, it was in most parts unable to give meaningful results on media burned on other drives, where the burn speed was higher than 8x. To make matters more confusing, along came PI/PIF scanning for NEC drives.  After a short honeymoon period of scanning discs with the NEC drives, it become apparent that the NEC drives were giving even less meaningful results. |
And I, on the contrary, came to think that scans performed in my Benq 1640/1650 and NEC 3540A wer far more
useful than Litey scans, in terms of predictability of real-world reading behaviour in several drives.
Actually, now, after hundreds of scans, I couldn't care less what drives would show more 'accurate' results. It's no use to me.
To compare different burns, any consistent scanner will do, whatever the actual numbers. And my Benq units are/were consistent (heavily tested for consitency!), contrary to what's been reported..
- and so are my two 3540 units. On really good discs (= real-world readability in a wide number of drives, including picky standalone players), even my 'looney' 4550 gives surprisingly consistent results.
Actually, I'm only experiencing something that has already been emphasised on this forum long ago, in the 'basics' of scanning: really good discs/burns will tend to show good PIE/PIF scans in most testing drives, while mediocre or poor burns will show wild variations among testing drives (or between several passes in the same drive). Except that in Liteys @4X or @8X, these variations will be much smaller than in Benq drives @8X. Can't say about Plextor units.
Then
to predict real-world behaviour, I choose to give more credit to scans from drives that are magnifying error levels and variations, rather than drives (Liteys) that give OK PIE/PIF results with about anything except with downright awful burns that won't be read properly in many drives (and, notably, in older or cheap standalone recorders, in case of video discs).
Put differently: in my opinion, testing for PIE/PIF in drives that happen to be the best readers around is just like having a graduation test with the most forgiving examinator around. All students will do well except the most ignorant ones. Need I say that I prefer to have a very picky examinator if my goal is to select really good students? It sounds like a truism, though only a handful of CDFreaks express the same feeling!
Yes, being able to compare one's burns with other members burns is fine, fun, and is an asset to the forum. But if it ain't really useful to sort out really good burns from so-so ones, isn't it kind of "alienating" too...?
I strongly advocate for a
change in paradigm concerning PIE/PIF scanning with Liteys. For al purposes except
comparing burns, I dare say that only scans performed @12X have any significance in LiteOn drives.
Of course, I don't expect this change in paradigm to happen anytime soon...
Quote:
|
I'm still convinced that by running a Disc Quality Scan and backing this up with a Transfer Rate Test. The average home user will have a good idea of how their burning drive and media is performing.
|
Aaaah, my friend, we can only agree on this one.
- transfer rate tests are wrongly regarded as useless by too many members here.
Kind regards,
Franck