Well percision and “showing troubles when they exists” are 2 different thing. Still IMO new LiteOns (from 812 and up) fail in both.
Some say “all drives report what they ‘see’ only”… so there are no drives that are more precise than others. But this is not true. If a drive drops samples also the percision and accuracy of scanning goes down and LiteOn drives drop a lot of samples so they aren’t percise. Also drives that don’t scan at 1 ECC aren’t as precise as drive that scan at 1 ECC… still all the values in this case are reported… however they are summed.
And about - “showing troubles when they exists”. I saw a lot of scans on LiteOn drives in reviews on CDFreaks and CDRLabs that showed a very good much more than acceptable scan… but the drive that performed the transfer rate scan had troubles. Also BenQ drives sometimes “screwed up” still less times as LiteOn did.
However this is not what bothers me most… you can’t blame a drive being a good reader. What bothers me that some judge the drive burning quality using scans of drives like this only… not even performing a transfer rate test (still a transfer rate only tell you if the disc is burned well and back without a problem or not… but it doesn’t tell you how well it is burned) or try to scan in other drive as well (if a disc is burned good all drives have to “agree”)… also using only one drive for scanning in reviews isn’t good… people may look at the drive and see a very good scan… ignoring the transfer rate test and form an opinion based on the scan only.
All in all there is no much better alternative if using one drive only… still using two drives for scanning is a lot better than only one. IMO Nec 3520/3540 are good drives for scanning… they aren’t the best readers around and they might tell you better when the drive has troubles… also my old LiteOn 411 is very good… it’s a bad reader and if he reports troubles then there are some regardless of sample drop… still it reports less PIE/PIF on than my Philips on a good scan.