So basically I just started scanning, and with the same media I get different results. The first image has dvds that are burnt and scanned with the same burner: ( burnt dvd from NEC, scanned with NEC, etc…)
The 2nd image has it so that the dvds switch places, so that the burnt dvd from NEC is scanned with the Lite-on:
So which one is right?! Which one should I believe?
So basically I just started scanning, and with the same media I get different results. The first image has dvds that are burnt and scanned with the same burner: ( burnt dvd from Lite-on, scanned with Lite-on, etc…)
The 2nd image has it so that the dvds switch places, so that the burnt dvd from Lite-on is scanned with the NEC:
So which one is right?! Which one should I believe?
Use the Liteon to scan, NECs are not very good drives for PI/PIF testing in comparison.
Scanning with this NEC is not useful.
I would scan with the Liteon.
I would believe the Lite-On, I have the same drive and it always tells the truth. You should be using the New Firmware MV7U 
haha, you do see my reasoning though, don’t you? i wanted to see how many people would agree that lite-on is the better scanner in the lite-on forum, vs. nec in the nec forum. but now that both topics got moved into the nec forum…
it still appears that lite-on is still winning
i just got this lite-on a couple of days ago, SHW-160P6S, version PS01, hasn’t been flashed so this is brand new
the NEC i’ve had for a while, NEC 3540A with fw 1.04 (rpc/riplock removed, etc…)
Scanning with 8x on the lite-on, 5x on the nec, both at 1 ECC (i hope that doesn’t matter)…
I second that. LiteOns are much more reliable scanners!
I prefer trusting my NEC 3540 scans. If these give high PI values something is not perfect and I already had unreadable discs that were scanned within the limits on a LiteOn 1693.
In any case, you should not compare scans from different burners.
Am I having an LSD flashback, or did someone just remove several posts from this thread?
If thats the type of trip you have id reccomend changing your dealer 
Probably because there are two threads with identical titles started by the same author.
Here is the other thread: Don’t know who to believe (Lite-on vs. NEC scans)
DrageMester, thank you! It’s nice to know that I haven’t completely lost my mind (at least not yet!)
As for me, I definitely vote for the Liteon as the more believable scanner. Having read these forums here and other places (rpc1.org, videohelp.com) for several years, I was under the impression that Liteon was considered to be the “gold” standard for quality scanning. I know I have seen posts by Dee stating that she believes the Liteon to be the more “definitive” drive for scanning. As such, I was rather surprised by this recent furor.
merged threads
Unreadble in what ? NEC drives, other writers or stand alone players ?
I see you point - I think- the Liteon is too good at reading and may have no problems with disks which wouldn’t work well in other machines.
I prefer to seek out better “players” - I have a number of 4 year old DVDs which could not be read a year or two ago which can be read by new drives so without wishing to burn coasters it is always possible that today’s “bad” burn will be fine in time.
To answer the original question - Liteon and nothing but
Now I wish I didn’t throw out all the coasters I burnt years ago, today or in the future they might be readable and a good burn. If you want to use Liggy’s theory why not just scan it with a Pioneer, if it scans as a good burn or even border line in a Pioneer it will be readable in anything you try it. Even the best scans in another burner will scan as a coaster in a Pioneer.
In NEC drives but even in the LiteOn drive I used for scanning with KProbe.
Interesting - no such thing then as a good or bad burn in any absolute sense - simply a good or bad burn in a particular player ?
There can’t be any 100% sensible reply to the original question, which is “which drive do I trust”, for two reasons:
[B]1.[/B]
PIE/PIF plots are not an analysis of errors on a disc, but a result of the reading process. All drives will report different errors. That’s for the theory. Call me nitpicky, but I think it’s important to constantly fight the idea that some drives would accurately “analyse” discs while others would inaccurately “analyse” them. What’s reported is always a [I]combination[/I] (+ possible chipset peculiarities, which is incidentatlly the case with NEC drives).
[B]2.[/B]
3540A scanning behaviour…?
Before buying my own first unit, I’ve been asking about the scanning behaviour of these drives. I’ve been told “maybe you’ll get lucky, some units are good (consistent) scanners and some others are erratic”. [B]So maybe you have one of these “erratic” units[/B]. But out of just a handful of scans, it’s impossible to tell.
**
Now to some considerations from my personal experience (+/- 400 scans performed in two 3540 units) and the time I’ve spent browsing the NEC forum for 3540A scans:
My first unit was so consistent a scanner 
that I bought a second one. These are my main scanning drives, and about one year later I have yet to find a reason to complaint about what they tell me about my discs. I CAN trust my 3540A scans to predict the behaviour of my discs in my different drives. I can’t say the same about my Benq scans.
But scanning with a 3540A implies to take an important point into account:
Chipset peculiarity! These 3540A drives (like most, if not all NEC drives) can report impossible PIE levels (over 1664) thus they don’t report PIE in a way that is compatible with ECMA recommendations (under 280 PIE). This is accompanied with a dramatic magnifying effect on PIE variation, which I personally find extremely useful when using scanning to check for the degradation rate of my discs. But it introduces a “difficulty” when reading the scans: one has to adjust the “standards” accordingly, meaning relaxing the 280 PIE limit. I consider anything under 500 as OK, anything under 150 as good, and anything under 80 as excellent. For PIF, though, the standard rules still apply.
Nevertheless, I’m gonna conclude by saying that in your case, you’d probably be better off by scanning in your LiteOn drive… 