CD-DVD Speed vs. DVDInfoPro vs. KProbe

I’m just wondering what scanning program people prefer and why?

A big fault I’m finding with CD-DVD Speed is the quality rating it gives for discs is pretty off. DVDInfoPro is much more accurate on this aspect.

Then there’s KProbe that doesn’t even have quality rating and I’ve been told is now “old school” and outdated.

Opinions?

My personal preferences are KProbe2 and CD-DVD Speed.

I just find them more user-friendly I think. I really don’t like the way DVDInfoPro is laid out, or presented.

I can’t say I really take much notice of quality scores. If PIFs look good, PIEs aren’t too astronomical, and TRT is good, then that’s good enough for me as far as quality tests go.

I like CD-DVD Speed except for the quality rating being so badly inaccurate. If they’d fix that it would be perfect.

Why do you think it’s “badly inaccurate”?

CD-DVD Speed quality score is based on Maximum PIF and depends on Scanning Interval. Here’s an easy table for reference: click here.

KProbe 2.5.2 was released in March 2006 so it’s pretty updated and works fine with Lite-On drives.

Quality scores are a waste of time anyway, any QS calculation can only be based on partial and subjective assumptions of what is important or not in a scan. Anyone who is serious about scanning will ignore any score calculated by any software and rely only on his/her own judgment. There are so many things that can impact a scan.

Once again, let’s repeat that scanning is relative, inaccurate, doesn’t “measure” anything on a disc (with the exception of jitter where applicable), and that its only really legitimate use is to compare your burns. So a “quality score” is there only to please the crowds who don’t understand what PIE/PIF scanning is. And frankly, my opinion is that if one doesn’t understand what one is doing, better forget about these tests altogether, unless he/she is really dedicated to learn (and that takes MUCH time, at least two different scanning drives and countless comparisons).

The only really important thing is to have the software and its features (and I don’t call the Qscore calculation a “feature” - it’s a gadget at best). In this respect, CDSpeed is clearly a winner, even more so since it’s 100% free and ad-free. :cool:

And a special award to Kprobe to have started the whole thing. :bow:

Francksoy, I’m not gonna quote your whole post to say that I agree with it, but I agree with almost everything you just wrote. :slight_smile:

The one thing I don’t agree with is that you list Jitter as excepted from the general rule (measurements being subjective). In my experience Jitter is also measured subjectively and depends very much on the drive used for scanning.

My opinion on the Quality Score is that people want it to mean something more than it merits, and that trying to calculate a single quality number from a PIE/PIF/POF scan is in general a futile task, because then you’re trying to leave all the “thinking” to a program, and one that only sees some small part of hw the disc behaves (e.g. only one drive and one speed).

Quality Scores are pretty much as objective as the movie or album ratings you can read in newspapers or on the 'net - it’s only the opinion of one single program/person that only has a limited perspective and which may not share the same view of what’s important as you do yourself.

My suggestion to people who use the Quality Score for determing whether a burn is good or not: Please stop trying to make the scanning program do the “thinking” for you, and realize that human judgement must be used to get a meaningful result.

And BTW no Disc Quality Scan is complete without a Read Transfer test or other real reading test to verify actual readability of the disc; Quality Scans as a general rule cannot tell you that important piece of information, and problems that won’t be detected by quality scans are sometimes easy to spot with a Read Transfer test.

You are right of course. :slight_smile: This is not exactly what I had in mind when writing this. Jitter reporting is not accurate in end-user drives, agreed. But jitter is something that is present on a disc, that we try to actually measure, even with questionable equipement. PIE/PIF are different because they’re not on the disc, they’re a result of the reading process, so we don’t measure something on the disc with PIE/PIF scanning, we examine the quality of the reading impacted both by the disc itself (burning quality, mechanical characteristics, physical condition like dust or scratches, reflectivity, whatever…) AND the drive itself in the way it copes with this disc. So PIE/PIF as reported in scans can reflect many different causes, unlike jitter, which is a definite physical characteristic of the burnt disc. Hope this makes my input clearer. :slight_smile:

Quality Scores are pretty much as objective as the movie or album ratings you can read in newspapers or on the 'net - it’s only the opinion of one single program/person that only has a limited perspective and which may not share the same view of what’s important as you do yourself.

Wel, I’ll do what you didn’t want to do and just… say that I agree. :bigsmile: - these were my thoughts as well. :iagree:

Ah, that explanation of the QS makes sense. I get it now. Thanks.

Though I also understand what Francksoy and DrageMester are saying as well. I wasn’t using the QS to determine if I had a good disc or not… it just looked to me like it was rather inaccurate in comparison to DVDInfoPro - but I understand that now thanks to Zevia’s link.