Plz point correct thread.. how to read

I have gotten myself totally confused on how to read the scanns and what some are postings as ‘great scanns’ which have high 'PIF’s {peeks greater than 50} and 'PIE’s {peeks greater than 10} and CD/DVD Speed is reporting the scans have a quality rating higher than 90%

Yet when I scan anything on my NEC_3540 @ 1ecc and even a single peek greater than 3 'PIE’s dropps the quality score down to less than 50%

And when I do a “read” test the media tests just fine…

So is there a chart some where that says something like…

\ When scanning with a 3540 /
Scanns in this range are grade:
“A”, PIE 0->50, PIF 0-1: media should playback in all players
“B”, PIE 50->100, PIF 2-3: media should playback in all players with no errors
“C”, PIE 101->200, PIF 4-5: average media should playback in most players with no visable errors {errors are corrected by player}
“D”, PIE 200->300, PIF 5-6: will playback but with visable errors…
“F”, PIE 301-> , PIF 7->: trash the disc and reburn… try different media

Just for the heck of it I did a quality scan on a pressed disk and the PIE’s/PIF’s were almost four times the worst burned disk that I have personally tested and trashed???

Am I trying to over think this and compare oranges to steaks??
Both are juicy but who has ever heard of a KC Strip from an orange??



Three days an no reply or pointing??

Well disks can still be readable it they have 2000+ pie’s, but are likely to fail at any time. Also The nec’s are not very reliable scanners, so i wouldnt worry about that too much. Even pressed dvds can deteriorate if not stored properly (eg left in direct sunlight, subjected to humidity etc.)

in conjunction with a pie/pif scan a transfer rate scan can give you a clue about the discs performance. single spikes of 10 or less pif are not much of a worry.

please view the dvd media testing thread or the 3540 mod firmware threads to get a better idea of what scans should look like

So do the NEC drives ‘add’ to the errors or do they not ‘read all’ the errors?

I would rather have a drive which when scanning a disc reported more errors than were on the disc than a drive which did not report all the errors…