KProbe or CD/DVD Speed?



Is one better than the other for technical reasons? I have a Lite-On 851 @ 832 and a Benq 1620 Pro. I’m burning exclusively YUDEN T02 at 12x in the Benq. Through my layman’s eyes the pros and cons seem to be that the CD/DVD Speed test is slightly quicker since people in the Benq forum seem to have settled on 8x as opposed to 4x testing with the Lite-On, and CD/DVD Speed also tests jitter. OTOH, I’ve been using KProbe longer and have stuck with it for familiarity and sentimentality up till now. Error rates are predictably higher on the 8x tests with CD/DVD speed, but as long as the sampling rate stays high enough, isn’t it better to have a more difficult test?

Also, Lite-Ons are supposed to be excellent readers. Even though I haven’t heard any negatives about Benq’s reading ability, should I be testing in the poorer reader in order to make the test more difficult/robust?

All opinions are welcome.


For scanning 12x / 16x burns I would recommend the 1620 as a scanner since it can also burn at 12x / 16x.
We’ve seen some funky results occassionally when scanning discs that have been burned faster than the scanning drive itself can burn.


It doesn’t matter which program you use, but only the LiteOn drive can give you ECC sum-1 PIF measurements. A lot of people will tell you that the Benq scans with ECC sum-8 measurement can be read with the assumption that the PIF is simply 8x higher than ECC sum-1 scans, but this is not true. If I have the choice between ECC sum-1 and sum-8 scans, I’ll choose the sum-1 scans. (LiteOn)


At ECC sum-1, the maximum PIF is 4 (standard, actually at 1x and with calibrated measurement).

Scaling to 32 at sum-8, assumes that the rate is even, when it probably isn’t, so a more usual compromise is 16 - though that could still represent an eves 2 across 8 ECC, or a badly out of specification 16 on one.

In many cases, the answer is “it doesn’t matter”, as it’s really only useful if you can tally those results with the actual readability in a PC drive or DVD player.

If a burn scans VERY badly, mountains at the end etc., you can be pretty sure you will have problems with it, but that’s about the only constant - it can scan well, and still play badly, or a fairly ugly scan can turn out ok (though it could be rather suspect for archival).

In the end, it’s a comparison, not an exact measurement.