Well, some folks have been arguing that the Pioneer 111D is a decent scanner. So I did a comparison scan today just to see if that really is true. I scanned the exact same disc not 14 hours apart. The first is with my Lite-On 160 (link below) and the second is with my Pioneer 111D. I can understand SOME variation but not THIS much. I had to cut off the 111D in mid scan because there were so many errors that it was freezing up my PC. For the Lite-On scan just scroll to the last post on the page:
agreed with dragemaster. the pio doesn’t like scanning past the layer break. even when the scan is good (my scan on the 111l for the mkm was better than the liteon scan you posted). the disk will just keep spinning after the break
CJ2: Fujitsu Siemens Computers, for example, uses lots of NEC burners.
Apparently, the new users just start coping with what they have instead of spending more than $30 (or â‚¬40 in rip-off Europe) for a drive with better scanning quality, although quite a few new users will get another drive sooner or later after they realize that NEC scans cannot be compared to other drives’ scans…
I don’t think my 111D is that great a reader. And I don’t see any way of getting a reliable scan unless the drive is a decent reader. FWIW, I recently set up EAC as part of a complete re-install to my C-drive. It tested four of my drives for reading audio CDs and the Pio came in dead last (the ASUS DVD-ROM was first). I suspect this lesser talent at reading CDs probably extends to DVDs as well.
As far as I remember, EAC just counts features (C2, Caching, Accurate Stream). The list of drives, that is generated is based on the presence of these features. It is not a list of reading quality at all.
Okay here it is. This is a smaller video file that I converted to DVD. It is on an old Fujifilm rebranded Taiyo Yuden disc. These scans were done one right after the other tonight. While both scans are well within acceptable limits, the contrast within PIE and PIF are more than significant. The PIE levels are approximately 1/20th on the Lite-On versus the Pioneer and the PIF levels are about 1/6.
So the numbers do not match… Both drives believe the disc is acceptable, what is the issue with the Pioneer results? [B]Francksoy[/B] has stated the reason why PIE results from Pioneer drives are so high compared to drives which report ‘[I]ECMA[/I]’ compatible numbers.
If you really believe that Lite-ON is the only acceptable consumer drive for scanning, fine, but if a drive is consistent in it’s reporting and views a disc as being ok where other more accepted drives agree, then I would not dismiss it’s results. Try comparing consumer drive scans with professional analyzers, then you really will be asking which drive to believe.