Mmhhh. Seems like the wind is turning at CDFreaks about testing, at least more and more users are questioning the relevance of PI/PIF scanning to sort out good burns from coasters. Not a bad thing, if you ask me: this whole scanning subject has been far too oversimplified IMO and too many points of view are taken for granted.
IMO there is enough empirical evidence to support the idea that PIE/PIF scanning is unreliable to sort out good discs from coasters, but it's not as simple as replacing PIE/PIF scanning with transfer rate tests, as the latter are just as dependant on the drive used than PIE/PIF scanning is. And I think that PIE/PIF scanning is under suspicion mainly because of the discrepancies in errors reporting among drives.
There is much room for debate in this area. Depending on the drives they use and the way they interpret the results, different people can have different opinions and can, paradoxically, all be right. :iagree: (and probably sometimes all be wrong as well LOL :bigsmile: ).
The most interesting point that you rise, sugarmommyst, is this one IMO: Quality scan is good for comparing between 2 good media but cannot tell if a disc is readable or if it will coaster . :iagree: This is something that numerous users don't know about: a drive doesn't actually READ the data while performing a PIE/PIF scanning. It's a point I've personally stressed several times on this board. There are even guys thinking that the reading curve in a PIE/PIF scan is the same than a TRT, which is, of course, wrong.
Actually it's been common practise among advanced users and mods, here, to perform BOTH tests. That's also what reviewers (at least the serious ones) do when testing drives and media. Both tests give indications.
@Colin: With the "speed" setting, the drive drops data blocks to achieve a shorter reading time. It doesn't actually read faster! I wouldn't do that if I were you, if your goal is to check the integrity of the disc. A single block with unrecoverable errors may get unnoticed!