1633S Good for Scanning?

Interesting results there, MediumRare. Again it appears that the scanning results @1633s are more reliable vis a vis the Nero scan. Interestingly enough, while in your case the 1213s is reporting higher scan numbers mine is always reporting very low number of numbers. I’d like to believe these are a correct reflection of the burn quality but I’m starting to doubt it. As you say probably the drive has a scan flaw. I’ve also had a 401s@811s which was constantly reporting very high PI numbers on +R media. I decided it couldn’t be a correct representation of the true disk quality and ditched it. Hopefully this 1213s/1633s will be better. It looks like it is.

There’s no difference between “scanning” and “reading”. They are the same thing, Kprobe is simply reporting the error correction numbers as the disc is read. It’s well known that the 1213 FW has serious issues with reading, and bizarre scans are common with 1213 FW.

@MediumRare: I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ve noticed this phenomenon since the first unscrambled 1633s firmware (the Sony drive) hit the net. DVD+Rs burned under both firmwares read like crap under the 1213s firmware, and were damn near beautiful with the Sony firmware. I’ve noticed the same thing with later firmwares as well.

I’ve found that the most reliable indicator of a disc’s quality is a Nero speedscan, using my finicky-as-all-get-out LTD-163 (you own an HP, don’t you? :iagree: ). While my 1213s@1633s will read most stuff, and my DVD player will read any crap that you throw at it, the LTD won’t even recognize stuff that is really poor. If it recognizes it, but give a wacky scan, then it’s on the mediocre side.

So yeah, I’ve found Kprobe to be of little help. What Kprobe is good for is finding whether read problems are due to a major problem over a large area of the disc, or due to a single spike (which I encountered when I tried out Verbatim discs a while back).

So it seems that a variety of tools are needed to really get an idea of what’s a keeper and what is crap.

That’s my main point (the bizarre scans). But as you’ve mentioned repeatedly too, I’ve found that the 1213S will read just about anything you put in it, and fast too. In that respect it’s an excellent reader. That’s what I want to point out with the scanning/reading distinction.

@nesler:
No I don’t own an HP- I built my own rig ca. 3 years ago and the LTD 163 was a good buy at the time.

G

Very true. Discs that the LTD won’t copy with a lot of effort can be read almost effortlessly by a 1213s.

@nesler:
No I don’t own an HP- I built my own rig ca. 3 years ago and the LTD 163 was a good buy at the time.

Whoops, bad call on my part. :Z But my pre-built setup is a couple years old, so the LTD must have been one of the biggies at that time.