CDSpeed xfer test vs Kprobe - clarification?



I have an 851SX converted to 832 with the latest CG5G firmware. I reset learnt media before flashing. I forgot to save my Kprobe scan, but it had a PIF max of 8, with the spikes over 3 being individual spikes that can usually be ignored, except in one area of the disk, where there were 2 spikes right next to each other. I decided to do a CD Speed transfer test since I hear alot about it and am posting it. From what I can tell, it looks good. I see a pretty smooth curve with no bumps. Does this indicate that the burn was good?

I’ve tried looking at the CDSpeed help but it gives me a message that it cannot load the manual and to look on the website but can’t find anything there either.


Do you have a drive that can read the disc at 12x or 16x?


Don’t think so…this was a stock 851SX USB drive, upgraded over time to the various Codeguys firmwares. I’m not really sure what the read rate is. Does that test look ok though?


It looks good; no speed drops.


FYI, the quality test in the Extra menu of Nero CD-DVD Speed is like the KProbe scan, but with the benefit of seeing the result as the scan takes place ;). Have a try of this scan and show us the result. Also see this thread:


I have tried the CDSpeed quality test in the past and like the real-time results but the thing I don’t like is that its hard to see if a spike is a single spike or 2 or 3 spikes together, at least with the default graphics. Also, KProbe has the remove highest value thing so its easy to verify that it was a single spike.

So basically, if I do a Kprobe and its within the allowable limits (<280/4) and the transfer rate test looks smooth with no dropoffs, it indicates a quality burn?

Also, with CDSpeed, should you do the transfer/quality tests with the DVDRW drive or could you do it with a DVD-ROM?



always use a burner for testing, roms give inacurate results…


ok, clarification:

C1/C2/PIE/PIF/Beta/Jitter/Whatever else are mostly theoretic scans. There is too much uncertainty when judging results, eg 1 single spike of 5 PIF’s could in theory result in PO (don’t quote me on that though), while 20+ could still be readable. It’s only useful for relative comparison, eg a burn with “a lot of” PIE errors is “more likely” to result IN POF errors (unreadable data), but it depends on how those errors appear and many more factors.

Speed scan is “practical” judgement. If your drive manages to read the written disc without any problems (dips), then it means it didn’t have any problems reading the disc. You should try this at highest speed possible, because the higher the speed, the less errors are needed to cause disruption. Furthermore, even if you DO have dips, they dont mean your burn is bad burn, though if you try it on standalone it might have more problems reading it at needed speed.

Whats even worse, is that you cant directly relate amount of PIE/PIF/POE errors to longevity of disc… while it is true that “more” of these errors “could” mean that disc will become unreadable “sooner”, it also depends on the dye used, protective, reflective layer and so on so forth.

So don’t forget: take all these scans with a grain of salt. Never get scared about “too many” errors (gosh, you DEFINITELY dont need to get scared about few 5-20 PIF spikes here or there). So if I would have to rate scans in order of importance, it would go like:

Data verification (POF) > Read speed scan > C1/C2/PIE > POE/PIF > Jitter, beta, etc etc…


woah that’s one long post;p


yes, but a good one :iagree:


we should have a section for this in FAQ :slight_smile:


actually there’s one mistake: PIF is more important than PIE :slight_smile: