I think the purpose of home testing should be practical, not theoritical, i.e. sorting out discs and burns in better/lesser in actual real-world conditions (higher speeds, reading tests like TRT) rather than finding the theoritical truth about what errors are "really on a disc" (which is a rather impossible quest anyway, as PIE/PIF errors are reading errors - how many times must it be repeated that scanning doesn't really "analyse" a disc for its so-called errors?).
The whole higher-speed scanning thing started with the observation that discs showing good PIE/PIF scans at standard speeds could nevertheless have reading issues in standalone recorders, or troubled reading curves in a TRT. I've mentioned several times already, that nowadays it seems legit to expect a near-perfect reading behaviour from a DVDR in any reasonably good reader.
High-speed scans can catch a fair amount (sadly not all) of such problematic discs, this is my everyday experience (and I'm not alone on this one) thus they have a superior practical value, in my view, than "standard" scans, whatever the theory says. Theory is theory, and real-world often doesn't agree with theory as we all know. If the theory about scanning was 100% sound, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. :bigsmile:
IMO only those who never actually tried to find a consistent, undeniable correlation between figures in PIE/PIF scans at different speeds and real-world readability for a given disc, will stick to "standard", "theoritical", so-called "accurate" scanning. I don't deny that according to ECMA standards, 1X scanning is more "correct". But that's entirely useless if this "correctness" cannot be linked to actual reading behaviour. Such instances (direct link between figures in a "standard" scan and actual readability) are difficult to find. It's not like I never tried. Instances of correlation between high-speed scans and actual readability, on the other hand, are far easier to find.
And I'm not trying to pick up a fight, Chas. I was underlining, and tyring to make you realize, that your views on the subject rely more on faith, habit, and pure theory, than on real-world, empirical evidence (which is the only interesting thing IMO in home testing - the rest is academic and has very little practical value, except to compare burners preformance/quality).
In a way, I'm pickier than you are: the reading performance of a disc @1X or @4X is not enough to make me happy. :disagree: I'm expecting from a disc to be read flawlessly @max speed in most reasonably good readers. Thus I use, and advocate, testing methods that help in picking the media and burning methods achieving such performance.
See the link I posted above showing evidence of what I explained. Or don't, but then I wouldn't see the interest of discussing scanning methods, if dismissing evidence that doesn't fit the theory is preferred to open-minded curiosity. I'll post it again here for convenience : Introducing 16X scanning as a possible better method to detect marginal burns or so-so media