I've noticed that dvd.d. does better on DL discs than IMGburn. LUK! saw my opinion and was stunned, so I'm going to post some comparisons between the two. In all cases the HDD was defragmented prior to burning. I don't have anything to back up as DL right now, but later I'll follow up. So, these first couple scans are just SL discs, which I would typically use nero. You invited to contribute your own results. Also discs are checked for dust and dye defects prior to burning.

Original thread: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=161174

This time the source data was different, but the drive was still defragmented, and an nrg image was used just as above. Less dramatic results.

These are all fine scans, well within accepted specifications.

I see nothing here that proves anything except:

1, Media variations.
2. Scanning variations.
3. A little too much faith in the scanning ability of BENQ drives (and other scanning drives).

The burning program should not matter as far as burn quality. The program isuues the write command and passes the data along. I have never bought into the BS that "program x gives me better quality burns than program y".

Have to agree with this.
Personally I'd burn at the rated media speed as I generally don't support the "burn slower for better burns" theory. There are exceptions to this where crap media is involved.