Is this the worst TYG01 scan ever?



What a shocker. And its a real TY.


Was it burned on an LG 4167B by any chance? :wink:


It is possible that the disc has been improperly stored. With old media like TYG01, this is really a possibility…


It’s an 8X scan


Think it was burnt on my 4167. I was stored well and has no scratches on it. thats why its so bad a scan.
What is better to scan at? 8 or 4 x?


I knew it! They’re notorious for not liking TYG01, at least with later firmware :slight_smile:



Pales in comparison to my LG 4167 - TYG01 scan here:

Now [B][I]THAT[/I][/B] is one scary scan-eh!


Uh? What’s your point? :confused:


Uh why don’t you answer this person? Why argue?

I prefer 4X than 8X with my LO drives from experience. Only reason people are using 8X scans is they are impatient but that’s my opinion.

I’ve seen 1000’s of scans at 8X or MAX and when scanned at 4X you got the real deal with LO drives.


If you want to post scans in the LiteOn DVD forum you should use 8x scans because that is the chosen standard scanning speed.

As for which is the “correct” or “best” scanning speed, the answer is that they are both right and they are both wrong. They each present a point of view about the quality of a disc, but one isn’t more correct than the other.

There is ongoing debate as to which drives are more reliable, which scanning speed is more reliable, whether quality scans are more or less reliable than transfer tests, and so on. What it all boils down to is that no single test will be able to tell you all you need to know about the “quality” of a disc every time you use that test.

Personally I find that 16x scans on my LiteOn 165P6S are more useful than slower speed scans most of the time, but they are hard to compare to what other people post on these forums.


:confused: This is uncalled for, mine was a polite question. You yourself didn’t make a point relevant to the op’s input unless further explained, I think…

Now I understand where you were heading to. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but I wonder on what real-world evidence you based your opinion that only 4X scanning with Liteys is “the real deal”. Comparisons with CATS scanning tell a very different tale. I concur with [B]DrageMester[/B]'s input, BTW.

Whatever, the scanning speed is definitly not the issue here for the op. :disagree:


Sorry this is getting off topic to Original Poster:

Where i’m from (USA) that was a sarcastic remark!" Uh What’s your point" that is. Still don’t know why you direct your question to me :confused: Still think you want to argue but that’s my opinion.

We’re not talking about CATS. The scan was from Kprobe. Like i said i’ve seen 1000’s of scans @8X and when scanned @4X tell a different story.

I disagree but we’re entitled to our opinions. Have a nice day from USA


Could we please return to a friendly tone in this thread? Thanks! :wink:

@rolling56: Your post #4 containing the remark “It’s an 8X scan” is too short to make much sense, unless people are supposed to guess at what you mean, so it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what you mean by that remark. Francksoy’s post #8 was meant as an attempt to make you explain that remark, and not meant as a sarcastic comment.


Not always but, I agree, in numerous instances. Most of the time I consider the difference as insignificant in my book, but OK, there is a difference. Nevertheless, the question I asked is, what makes you think that the @4X scans are “the real deal”, and that the 8X scanning speed of the original poster can be the hidden issue?


I agree and have no problem with that :slight_smile:

As i explained it’s a sarcastic argumentative remark to me. I should have said to scan again at 4X and post :wink:


With the limited scanning at home 4X works best for me so i call it the real deal with what i have to work with here. These tools are just for your own benchmarking. I use CD-DVD Speed at 4X with my LO and get (almost) exact results with Kprobe within a few (less than 50) PIE and PIF count scanned at 4X. But that’s my machine,my drives,software etc… I don’t own any LG drives so i didn’t know they were crappy TYG01 burners.


Who said they were crappy TYG01 burners?


See post #6 and #7 in this thread.


They talked only about one model, the LG 4167 and later firmwares.


Yep, absolutely. It’s well known (amongst 4167 owners at least) that with later firmwares, the 4167 only burned TYG01 very badly.

This does not mean we were talking about all LG drives :disagree:

Sorry, had to clear that up, since my other LGs burn any flavour of TY very nicely :wink: