On a scale of 1 to 10

Can I have your thoughts on this one?

Looking very good to me. Scans not everything, so a TRT would be a good measure of readability.

9/10 if TRT smooth :slight_smile:

[quote=jubjubbird;2135371]looking very good to me. Scans not everything, so a trt would be a good measure of readability.

9/10 if trt smooth :)[/quote]

trt?

[Transfer Rate Test= TRT]
You should get a smooth curve going up to 16x


judging by the QS alone, 9.5/10

LOL knows how to scan but has no idea what a TRT is…

Umm I rate it 5/10. I get much better results. You should chuck that out mate, it won’t last the distance.

[QUOTE=cd pirate;2135458]Umm I rate it 5/10. I get much better results. You should chuck that out mate, it won’t last the distance.[/QUOTE]
I assume that’s a joke?

[QUOTE=cd pirate;2135458]LOL knows how to scan but has no idea what a TRT is…

Umm I rate it 5/10. I get much better results. You should chuck that out mate, it won’t last the distance.[/QUOTE]Naughty, naughty pirate. lol

[QUOTE=cd pirate;2135458]LOL knows how to scan but has no idea what a TRT is…

Umm I rate it 5/10. I get much better results. You should chuck that out mate, it won’t last the distance.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am an idiot. But, I should get a couple of points for trying to understand.:sad::sad:

I’ll be posting the not so pretty TRT when I get to my other computer today.

About the TRT, you should know that there is a still unsolved bug in latest version of cd-dvd speed that causes a TRT to appear irregular because the drive attempts to run two tests at the same time, and of course this causes a false TRT graph.

To run the TRT, then, you should use a previous version like the 4.60 :slight_smile:

Moreover, you should be sure that the process priority is set as High or the TRT could appear irregular even if the disc is perfectly burned :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=TheCoffeePolice;2135614]Yes, I am an idiot. But, I should get a couple of points for trying to understand.:sad::sad:[/quote]No you’re not an idiot. :flower: CDpirate tends to make his points with strong words and little consideration for the poster’s feelings. Don’t get too upset: first I know him well enough to know that he means no wrong, second you’ll get used to it. :stuck_out_tongue:
(third, I’m sometimes just as harsh as he can be - or worse - so I’m not in a position to criticize him too much :bigsmile: )

OK his point is (I guess) that interpreting scans is actually a difficult art with a slow learning curve, and lots of reading, burning, scanning and cross-checks. Transfer Rate Tests, on the other hand, are mostly either a “pass” or a “fail”: perfect reading curve = pass, dips in the curve = not good enough (though usable).

Lots of people rush into scans and, after having read a couple of threads on the net, start using silly ways to sort quality according to scanning results, like PIF total counts or the so-called “quality score”. We are several here to criticize these unsound methods and preach that unless it’s for pure fun, one should better stick with TRTs to test his/her burns. Or choose to really dig scanning deep and put lots of efforts and time in it. It’s fun, but believe me, it’s a time-consuming thing.

Well, I think that’s more or less what CDPirate meant. :slight_smile:

As for your scan, my opinion, jitter is on the higher side in my picky book for what I guess is an @4X or @8X burn, and I don’t trust @4X scans in a LiteOn (too forgiving to my taste)… but as far as PIE/PIF levels go in a @4X scan, they’re top-notch.

[QUOTE=jubjubbird;2135371]
9/10 if TRT smooth :)[/QUOTE]

:iagree:…and if playback is flawless :wink:

Scan’s great, jitter’s just on the edge of my personal limits. All good so far IMO, look forward to the TRT (and a possible playback report?) :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2135679]…I don’t trust @4X scans in a LiteOn (too forgiving to my taste)…[/QUOTE]

Would that extrapolate to MediaTek drives in general?

Does that mean you prefer higher-speed MediaTek scans, or that you prefer Nexperia or Sanyo scans?

[QUOTE=negritude;2135774]Would that extrapolate to MediaTek drives in general?[/quote]Not sure but I guess so. The Samsungs with Mediatek are also incredibly tolerant to mediocre burns, showing magnificent scans even with burns with significant reading issues in several drives. @4X only makes things worse (because they look even better :wink: )

Does that mean you prefer higher-speed MediaTek scans, or that you prefer Nexperia or Sanyo scans?
:doh: I don’t think I can answer this question fully without writing several pages LOL. I do have a hunch towards Nexperia scans, mainly because I got used to them and the way they react to different kinds of media issues, but they’re not a one-fits-all solution either, they have their share of quirks and problems. I always prefer multiple scans (and transfer rate tests) in several drives at several speeds. For Lite-On (burners) scans, I start to take them into account @8X minimum. As mentioned above, at slower speeds I simply find they are just like a lazy examinator giving good rates to any student who’s not downright stupid and ignorant. I know that some models give looney figures @12X scanning though. So I think a @8X Lite-On scan with jitter + a TRT in a picky reader is a perfectly acceptable basic testing routine.

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2135801]…for Lite-On (burners) scans, I start to take them into account @8X minimum. As mentioned above, at slower speeds I simply find they are just like a lazy examinator giving good rates to any student who’s not downright stupid and ignorant…[/QUOTE]
Haha, that one’s good enough to put on a fortune cookie. :clap:

Hehe yes Franck, you summed it all up quite nicely!

Might I add, these days I am quite tolerant of scans. I can get PIF blocks and whatnot, stuff some people call rubbish but I still keep the burns. I honestly can’t be bothered re-burning something that works fine in real world operation. It’s so simple but if it works in the dvd player etc flawlessly, it’s a success whether you like it or not.

I still scan though. More so for a record of my discs. If some deteriorate over time or some don’t play back properly, I can go back and find out when it was burned, how fast is was burned, what drive was used, what media was used, also what batch of media etc. I tend to be using my BenQ 1620 @ 8x PCAV then scanning with my secondary drive, the Liteon LH18A1P @ 16x. If the 16x scan brings up massive errors, it’s 99% sure to cause reading problems when TRT’ing with the same drive.

For something important, like my PS2 backups, I want as close to perfection as I can get. I usually burn with MCC02RG20, scan with multiple drives at multiple speeds + TRT. Reason being that I want my PS2 to have the easiest time possible reading the discs, I also do not want to be playing a game and have it freeze due to reading errors after I have played hours without being able to save. It also helps with load times. Bad burns can cause re-reads to be done, making things load slower.

You can even tell on the PS2 sometimes when the laser is having trouble reading, it squeaks and makes ticking noises when re-reading. When you use a MCC02RG20 that’s been burnt well, or an original, you never hear that, just the laser assembly moving up and down etc.

Sorry for taking the piss with you a bit, TheCoffeePolice. As Francksoy said, it’s not as simple as many people think it is. From the look of it, yeah that’s a nice scan. Out of ten… well you’d have to read the site I’m about to make! I can send a link. I just thought of making it now… sparked by this thread lol.

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2135801]So I think a @8X Lite-On scan with jitter + a TRT in a picky reader is a perfectly acceptable basic testing routine.[/QUOTE]

OK, now for the really stupid question:

If practical experience has shown that 8x scanning may possibly be “better” (I know, I know, there is no such thing as “accurate” just relative interaction between a particular drive and a particular piece of media) for MediaTek drives, then why do we cling to the idea of 4x being a scanning “standard”?

How did 4x become the MediaTek scanning “standard”, and is it time we discarded it?

[QUOTE=negritude;2135942]OK, now for the really stupid question:

If practical experience has shown that 8x scanning may possibly be “better” (I know, I know, there is no such thing as “accurate” just relative interaction between a particular drive and a particular piece of media) for MediaTek drives, then why do we cling to the idea of 4x being a scanning “standard”?

How did 4x become the MediaTek scanning “standard”, and is it time we discarded it?[/QUOTE]

Haha, I abandoned that ship long long ago. It’s all 16x scans for me now on the Liteon, with 8x scans on my BenQ just in case something was missed.

Some people have theories of which scan speed is best. Really they are all bull crap, I just do the smart thing and save time by going with 16x. It has uncovered far far more problems than it has ever hidden, unlike 4x.

@negritude: It’s a complicated subject, not a stupid question at all, and I certainly don’t have all the answers. You’ll need to read opinions from DrageMester, C0deking, Dee-27, tropic, pinto2, Halcyon, Jean-Luc, rdgrimes, cd pirate… to get a fuller picture of this topic. Lots of members here have interesting things to say. As you already know, scanning is not a science but an art, so no one can pretend to have the full knowledge. :doh:

A long reply is in the works (I stopped wrting when I realized I had already filled half a page lol), that will be posted in the “media testing/identifying software” section, maybe in one of the thread already dedicated to such considerations.
Then I’ll post a link here.

Meanwhile, I’ll remind everyone that C0deking already suggested to change the standard to @8X for all Lite-On drives since the 5S line, as soon as 2005. This has been met with strong resistance for all sorts of reasons, mostly unsound ones. :rolleyes: (which doesn’t mean that there were no sound ones, and doesn’t mean either that @4X scanning doesn’t have its uses - IMO it has, just not merely on its own).

[QUOTE=cd pirate;2135936]Hehe yes Franck, you summed it all up quite nicely![/quote]OK then, thanks. :slight_smile:

Might I add, these days I am quite tolerant of scans. I can get PIF blocks and whatnot, stuff some people call rubbish but I still keep the burns. I honestly can’t be bothered re-burning something that works fine in real world operation.
For me it just depens if I intend to keep the disc for a long time or not. For example, as I noticed fatser degradation around unburnt spots (which is the most frequent cause of PIF clusters, the other one being small scratches), I still take PIF clusters seriously for long-term (> 2 years) discs. :slight_smile:

@tropic: hey, long time no see! :cool: