He’s well aware of that, he said it, and he deliberatly put the word betwen quotes. Aren’t you being kinda nitpicking, here? (no offense intended).
Moreover, it is self contradictory to say that â€œa burner such as a Liteon, Plextor, or Benq would make a much more ‘accurate’ tool than any DVD-ROM driveâ€ and that â€œthey are all accurate in that they are reporting only what they seeâ€.
Once again, there is one accurate between quotes and the other without quotes. - please pay attention to such things, they are used to limit misunderstanding/confusion, so ignoring them easily leads to endless arguments.
Those observations indicate that the Lite-On DVD-ROM drive is more sensitive than your DVD burners to errors, and may even suggest that the Lite-On DVD-ROM drive is a better choice for testing media rather than the opposite.
Why is that? Assuming one wants to apply ECMA standards to scans, the best scanner would not be the scanner the most (or the less) sensitive to errors, far from it. It would be the scanner which error reporting is the closest to Audiodev’s CATS, if such a scanner exists (CATS vs. Homemade scans).
And if one doesn’t want to apply ECMA standards, any consistent scanner (i.e. reporting consistently with several passes of the same disc) will do, after all, as without standards, scanning can only be used to compare burns, and not in the least to judge of the quality of the burn.
Sorry, Franck, you have misread my words
Indeed, I see it now. Sorry about that.
I used to believe that â€œthe drives are just reporting what they see and each drive is reporting accurately what it saw in terms of error levelsâ€, too. However, I have not seen any evidence for it, not to mention proof, after very extensive reading at several major websites. On the other hand, evidence against those viewpoints has been identified very recently. It is true that every drive reports what it sees in transfer rate test, in which data are indeed read. In contrast, signals are treated in some way different in disc quality tests, and even the testing software plays some roles in the errors computed. In the thread I cited before, it has been mentioned that DVDInfoPro prior to the newest version gives incorrect PIE/PIF numbers at least when using certain drives. There are other cases of incorrect reporting of error levels by some drives, but the causes remain unknown.
Good points, but it doesn’t lead me to different conclusions than Scoobiedoobie’s: no drive is more accurate than the next, as no drive actually reports errors that are on the disc whatsoever, but reports “something” about the way it retrieves information from the disc. I think it’s the core of the misunderstanding here: as long as the idea that drives report physical errors on a disc prevails, we’ll all have a hard time to get each other’s point. I also think that the three of us (and also DrageMester and rdgrimes) basically look at the same facts, understand it correctly, but draw different conclusions because of different perspectives and different habits.
The way I see it, considering the widely spread misconceptions about scanning on this board, what we need as scanners are not accurate scanners, but scanners that are the closest possible to the way CATS report errors, so we can apply ECMA standards to these scans. OR scanners that are consistent, and get used to the way they report errors. But this is an art, relies on empirical testing and experience, and can’t be recommend “as is” to users who are only trying to know if their burns are OK.
Out of interest for your views, I’ve been following closely your input on this board for some time now. The problem IMO in the way you put things, despite the fact that most of the points you make are sound , is that I feel you’re making the whole thing even more confusing than it already is, partly for the pleasure of contradiction (once again no offense intended, I recognise I myself tend to do that sometimes ). So actually I’m a bit frustrated, because I feel our conversations about scanning could be much more “productive” than they’ve been up to this point, if only we’d all make more efforts to be more “practical” and less “rethoric” (mind the quotes ) in the way we exchange ideas.
And talking about rethorics, I hope this long, very rethorical post of mine will be the last of its kind before long LOL