Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanW  Excepting certain media / drive incompatibilities, any media written on any drive should read in any other drive, preferably at full speed. |
Yep.
Quote:
|
I am most likely to toss a disc firstly based on the results of a ScanDisc test, secondly by a TRT. I would never toss a disc based soely on a Quality Scan, unless the results were crazily out of line with my expectations.
|
I've preached that a lot. Keeper/Coaster: basically TRT, not scans. But scans are nevertheless useful, as dramatically high reported errors are often an indication that the disc will have lesser compatibility with readers. A TRT often can't tell this, unless you use a really picky reader for TRT tests. Plus other uses of scanning of course, like detecting surface/media defects, checking media consistency, choosing best firmware/ burning speed, checking for stability...
Quote:
|
A disc could pass a TRT at full speed but still have damaged sectors that you would only see in a ScanDisc test.
|
I'm willing to stand corrected if someone can provide the data, but I think this is wrong, based on my own checks. The TRT is always the pickier of the two, so any issue a scandisc* could show in a given drive will appear in the TRT in the same drive.
Quote:
I would therefore recommend to anyone the following:
1) If you're prepared to sit and watch the test, do a ScanDisc test to check for data and error margin integrity, while you're watching it you will get most of the benefits of a TRT. I.E. if the drive has to slow down to read the disc, you'll know about it.
|
This is so impractical that I don't think it can be recommended.
Plus I think that a scandisc* is not needed when a TRT has been performed, except for curiosity, as I've never seen a disc showing damaged sectors in a scandisc* AND a perfect TRT (assuming both tests are performed in the same drive of course.
) - but I'll stand corrected if you or someone else provide data showing the opposite.
*EDIT* - "scandisc": I'm referring to the
reading test
