[Kinda OT][QUOTE=Albert;2059447]Actually, there are a few users that use their Samsungs exclusively for scanning[/QUOTE]Woa. As cd pirate put it last week, this scanning nonsense has reached whole new levels recently.
The Samsung 203B/N and 203D/P, being incredibly good readers, dramatically under-report PIE/PIF errors on marginal of bad burns. Not ‘under-reporting’ in the sense that the reports would be incorrect (which is about impossible to demonstrate), but in the sense that discs showing an excellent PIE/PIF scan in these drives can nevertheless be very poor discs, that other drives will have issues to read or even reject. And I have the scans and TRTs to prove it.
Use these 203 models as testing drives at your own risks. Only sound testing use of these 203 Sammies is to compare burn A with burn B, both being made with the same media, or to check (with TRT) that the disc will be fully readable in the Sammy itself.
From what I’ve seen in the 223 thread, it behaves differently and could be an interesting scanner. Probably a lesser reader, then, we can’t have the best of both worlds…
And about jitter: yes, jitter is very important, sometimes even more important than PIE/PIF values. The fact that many users are not interested in it, has more to do with history and habits (CDFreaks original home-scanning drives were Lite-On drives, and these couldn’t report jiter until recently) than with actual methodology. Maximum jitter should be 9% according to ECMA documents. Most CDFreak members are willing to accept higher jitter values, but will reject out-of-specs PIE or PIF, though it has never been shown that slightly out-of-specs PIE/PIF values would impact reading more than slightly out-of-specs jitter values.
It’s all about assumptions and conformism. People like to stick with habits, whatever real-world and sound methods show…
There. That’ll do. I’ve ben a pain in the a** again.