Scanning at 8x or slower is a bad thing

Poor quality media scan well at slower speed then at higher speed. Those who kept pushing me to do 5x scan are misleading others to think it is more accurate, it is not. 12x or 16x is much more accurate. High quality media will do transfer rate test at 16x with little or no problems.
You wonder how the scan look good and the speedtest is horrible? Answer, the media quality is crap. Because its crap its better read at slower speed then at high speed. How can ya consider media that require slow speed to read well a good media? the world is upside down… What encourages most to do 4-8x? they get better results then at 12x or 16x.

if you check the popup you will find that the number of samples is greatly reduced when you scan at 12x and 16x… this can lead to missing problems.

That last media was decent it was harder to tell let’s try something really crappy and ya will know exactly what I am talking about. I notice that it reads well at 8x but not at 12x or 16x. It’s the same for scanning. They are parallel.

Nero CD-DVD Speed: Disc Info
Basic Information
Disc Type: : DVD-R
Book Type : DVD-R
Manufacturer: : unknown
MID : SKC Co.,Ltd.
Write speeds: : 2 X - 4 X
Blank Capacity : 4.38 GB
: 4489 MB
: 4707319808 bytes
Extended Information
Layers : 1
Usage : General
Copyright protection : n/a
Recorder information : recorded with NEC DVD_RW ND-3540A
Disc Status : Closed
Raw Data
Pre-recorded Information in Lead-in (0Eh)
0000 - 01 40 C1 FD 9E D8 52 00 02 88 0D 13 66 78 80 00 - .@…R…fx…
0010 - 03 53 4B 43 20 43 6F 00 04 2E 2C 4C 74 64 2E 00 - .SKC.Co…,Ltd…
0020 - 05 88 80 00 00 00 01 00 82 5F D4 77 5C D5 05 00 - …
.w…
0030 - F0 88 FA 77 60 38 F5 77 FF FF FF FF E3 39 F9 77 - …w`8.w…9.w
0040 - FE 18 DD 77 3B 19 DD 77 98 E7 01 13 02 00 00 80 - …w;…w…
0050 - 1C 00 00 00 0B 00 00 00 58 00 00 00 1C 00 00 00 - …X…
0060 - 94 D5 05 00 40 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 15 00 - …@…





There is some truth to what you’re saying here, but it is not as simple as you try to make it.

As cnlson points out, you will probably lose some samples when scanning at high speed in Nero CD-DVD Speed which makes a high speed scan less accurate in one respect. This behaviour may be specific to Nero CD-DVD Speed and it may also depend on the drive and your system.

If you scan at the drive’s maximum speed (16x) you are at the edge of the drive’s operating capability, and so you are testing the drive at least as much as you are testing the media, but I think we can agree that all scanning speeds from 1x to 12x should in theory be equally valid.

When people in these forums decide on a standard scanning speed, it helps in comparing scans beween different drives of the same type, but no single scan speed or drive for that matter is going to tell you some “absolute truth” about the quality of a disc.

It seems to me that many people are only burning DVD Video discs, and these discs are going to be played back at 1x or 2x in their DVD players, so it doesn’t really matter how these discs perform in a pc drive at 16x read speed.

For those of us who burn both Video and Data discs, the behaviour of a disc when read at high speed is just as important or even more important than the behaviour at low speed, and that is why I personally scan in my Plextor drive at both 2x and 12x speeds.

Some drives are really strange in their behaviour at some of the medium speeds; my Plextor PX-712 drive will often show an inflated level of C1 errors at the beginning of a CD when scanning at 24x (half the maximum speed) compared to when scanning at either lower or higher speeds, so I put little trust in the scans at this specific speed in this specific drive. My NEC 4551 shows worse scans at 5x and 8x speed for most discs than if I scan at 1x or 12x/16x, and for CDs it sometimes shows slightly inflated C1 errors at 32x speed compared to lower and higher speeds.

This behaviour might be related to vibrations in a drive at specific speeds depending on the media, or it might be something else going on?!

If you think that scanning at 12x in your drive gives you a more “realistic” view of your burn quality, then go ahead and scan at that speed. But you shouldn’t be throwing away discs that look bad only when scanned at 16x speed, and you should at least try to post scans at the speed(s) that are standard to the threads or forums you post in.

This SKY media is kinda similar crappy than the one from the first scans…