Why high-speed scanning is good / Why high-speed scanning is bad

1. Check. From what I can see I'll be saving a lot of time now (sans TRT and long DQ) but will lose a few days of my life next summer - good tradeoff.

2. Check. I only compare scans that I've made with my own hardware, not of other people (still good for reference though).

I only usually scan unreliable media and save time by burning primarily on MCCs/MKMs. Thanks for the recommendations!

good catch. yes 11%, i thought 21% seemed kinda high.

thanks

i was attempting to agree with cd pirate's previous postings from may - june.

thats what i am doing. 6 min scans are nice

thank you

Any thoughts?

Looks good, very good actually.

Take a look at this: http://club.cdfreaks.com/2141080-post9.html

Unfortunately, I cant do a 16x LiteOn scan because the MID UME01 is locked to 8x reading via firmware

My Daxon AZ2 (+R 8x) also can't be scanned at 16x on the S203N - setting the scan at 16x/maximum still results in a 12x DQ scan. This is certainly a drawback of high-speed scanning that purely dependent on the scanning drive, and makes comparing 8x and 16x media scans quite difficult (for me at least) due to slight inconsistencies.

i had not realized this, are you using Modified firmware or Stock? i had just figured that all CodeKing Enhanced firmwares were Read Speed Patched.

I'm using C0dekings EOHT6 fw, the stock one has the same lock on certain MIDs (Ritek D01@8x reading for example).

until further notice im staying with 16x disc quality

Good scans, pretty much similar. 16x is the way to go for people on the run.

I think we should standardize on 8x scans for MediaTek and Nexperia drives. I just acquired a couple of DH-20A3P drives and will abandon 4x scanning from now on. I see 12x or 16x scanning as something you can do for your own tests, but we still need a reasonable standard speed for relative comparison. Since Nexperia is already at the 8x sweet spot, moving MediaTek up to 8x makes sense to me. I know all this isn't scientific, I'm just arguing for keeping things simple.

Just remember that some of the LiteOn drives of the A1 and A4 series have a quirk at 8x that exaggerate the quality [in a negative way] at the beginning of most discs. Also--and this is way more rare--some people still use LiteOn 3S drives to scan discs, and they don't get along well with 8x.

im will to follow a Forum Standard for posting.

just for personal use i will stick with 16x.

benq 1640, not good for 16x scanning, maybe 12x will be okay.

edit// i should say, my benq 1640 not all in general

---

Last edited by troy512; 02-11-2008 at 18:06. Reason: editing

How do you come to this conclusion... is it from the scan you posted? If so, what's the problem in your opinion..?

dont like the PIE results after the speed reaches above 12x.

OK then.

Once again, I see someone choosing to discard a testing method (here a higher speed) that reports MORE errors, to favor another one (here lower speed scanning) which reports LESS errors. To me, it doesn't make sense at all, and I wonder how it can make sense to others (which are numerous on this board, so you're not alone on this ). Without cross-checking with real-world reading tests, choosing the test that reports the lowest errors is like buying those fancy tinted glasses which makes life look so much prettier. Everyone is entitled to his/her fool's paradise, but that's not what testing is about, not in my book.

Whatever. The whole point of a higher scanning speed is that it makes the test more difficult for the disc and the drive, thus an increase in errors when the speed gets to max is of course entirely normal and expected!

No significant increase in errors? => Great disc/burn.
Significant (but still comfortably in-specs) increase in errors? => Decent disc/burn.
High increase in errors, which reach out-of-specs levels? => Either the disc isn't top-notch (mechanical characteristics) or the burns is not very good.
Assuming, of course, that occurences of no increase in errors when scanning at higher speed in the drive used, have actually been observed.

8x, 12x, 16x

PIF and Jitter are close enough i dont see a problem.

16x

PIE max is 3x higher, as i can scan the same disc all day at 4x, 8x, 16x in the lite-on and not see the increase in PIE i feel its just a flaw in my particular BenQ.

so its not that i am going to use a speed just because it reports lower errors. i am choosing 12x because i feel that the increase in PIE is not the disc or the burn, its just how the BenQ reacts to high speed scanning.

now if the increase in PIE where from say 6500 to 8500, then i would still feel that the BenQ is reliable at 16x. but 19000 is just too much for me to feel comfortable with the results being accurate. also if the PIF and Jitter also increased then i would feel the results were within reason.

i have checked more than just the one quality scan which ive posted. each time the results have been the same.

thank you for challenging my discussion.

what do you mean. playing the disc in a stand alone dvd player. yes this has been done. it played just fine infact.

Troy, sorry but Franck is 100% right. There is nothing wrong with your BenQ. It's not being inaccurate or anything like that. It's simply seeing a few more errors @ 16x because the disc is harder to read @ that speed.

The liteon simply has no trouble @ 16x because it is a more tolerant reader. My own drives (BenQ 1620 and Liteon LH18A1P) both report significant increases in errors @ 16x on some discs. I'm talking about PIE going from 25,000 total to 300,000 total.

It's because of the reasons Francksoy stated. Disc is harder to read due to poorer burn, poorer characteristics (balance, high jitter etc). It's not because the drive is inaccurate at high speeds.

@Troy:That's very important! There is no such thing as an accurate scan. Forget about accuracy in scans, it simply doesn't exist, it's a figment of people's imagination based on flawed understanding of what are PIE and PIF. Scanning is entirely relative, and only shows the interaction between a given drive/disc combination. These errros are not "on the disc" and are not "measured" by the drive or the software. (not to say that there are no errors on a disc, but that's not the same thing).

I like a lot the way Ann-Willow put it: http://club.cdfreaks.com/1909384-post260.html

"I had hoped parity scans was real measurements for quality.
I am still trying to understand what is happening while a parity scan, I think I start to understand that it is not the humps of the road that we see, but the cars jumping on the humps... so different cars, different jumps... different speeds, different jumps... still the same road (=the disc)"

And sadly, there is no way to know which of our "cars" follows the road more closely than the others. We can only use lots of different cars, ovserve the differences and make an educated guess of the road's condition....

No, I mean performing transfer rate tests at full speed in picky readers. And I was not specifically referring to your scan above. From my experience, I would say that the odds that this very disc will play flawlessly in most drives are very high.

using a reliable burner: pioneer 115D 1.18

using reliable media: Taiyo Yuden TYG02

using reliable scanning drives: Lite-On 20A1P @ 20A4P and Plextor 740A @ BenQ EW164B

perform scan in lite-on at various speeds mulitple times with multiple disc, each result is fairly similar

perform scan in benq at various speeds multiple times with multiple disc, [excluding 16x] each result is fairly similar

since only the 16x in the benq produces the higher PIE counts and only higher PIE counts for my own personal use i am going to use 12x. if either the PIF or Jitter [or both] had risen also, then i would assume it was the burn or the disc.

Sounds like a plan. A 12x BenQ scan should take less time than a 16x Litey scan + jitter pass, anyway.

Just a thought, but that 16x BenQ scan looks great to me. You could lend me the disc, and I could scan it at 16x in one of my Liteys... it would look even better. Nothing like tossing samples at higher speeds to improve your scan results. If my S203B's could scan jitter, I'd ditch my Liteys in a heartbeat.

I can certainly understand your logic here, but you're still missing the point.

People like cd pirate or myself aren't using @16X scanning because we think it's more accurate. We use it because it's a more difficult test for a disc to pass. Sorting out discs/burns into better ones / worse ones to choose the best burning methods (among other goals that are more questionable). Statistically, I have come to the observation that @16X DVD scans in Benq/Nexperia drives can catch disc issues that scans at slower speeds won't. And this is based on more than 500 comparative scans, not just a couple... - things are different with other brands/models of drives. Lite-On drives, especially, have a much less predictable behaviour when changing the scanning speed, some models being actually less forgiving @4X than @16X!

If you simply scan a couple of discs at several speeds, and then jump to conclusions from these anecdotic tests, you're missing the point entirely (sorry for repeating myself). This said, I agree that as long as you use good discs, a good burner and you burn at reasonable speeds, there is no need for harsh testing and if you have the extra time, @12X or even @8X scans in Nexperia drives are perfectly fine then.

Ooooh, I would never ever trust my own 203B as a scanner.
Even my worse testing discs (with actual reading issues) look good in it, whatever the scanning speed.
Maybe your unit is less forgiving, but really, keep an eye on that..