Originally posted by pinto2
@gof, the standard for scans with Kprobe in this forum is; 4X speed, 8ECC, max unchecked.
There is no consistency in posted scans...
I know the requested standard is 4x, which is why I was running and posting those. But the severity of the difference between a 4x scan and a 1x scan is what I'm worried about.
Basically, the information posted on this board for KProbe, and how to interpret the results, pretty much states that an acceptible scan shows <280 PI and <32 PO for a 4x scan. Anything else above that should be considered a bad burn, poor media, or both. ALL of my burns are in this category! If the conditions of <280<32 are not "real", then that should be stated in the FAQ's as it's critical to interpreting media quality. To say that "There is no consistency in posted scans..." begs the question, why use KProbe at all?
I'm not (trying to be) argumentative, I'm trying to further my understanding and at the same time, find some media which would be considered "good". Ritek is considered "good" be many here. I'm trying to hunt down some RICOHJPNR01 as a cross check, but I'm guessing that they might show the same behaviour.
Which leads to the question, HOW to use KProbe to quantitativly measure a good burn, and how much of KProbes results are from the burner inaccuracies and how much is the actual media.
Is the author of KProbe around? As I mentioned before, the ability to pull the raw error data shown in the graphs as a log output for stat analysis would help, as well as the ability to run KProbe via the command line (to permit multiple unattended runs).