Which errors are set-top players more sensitive to?

Do set-top players prefer discs with PIE slightly out of spec or PIF slightly out of spec (assuming the other is within spec)?

I’ve seen some BenQ scans that are arguable which are better. Would you rather have disc A or B:

disc A:
PIE: 15,000 total, avg 2
PIF: 2,500 total, avg 0.4, max 8
POF: 0

disc B:
PIE: 1,000,000 total, avg 80
PIF: 20 total, avg 0.0, max 1
POF: 0

I would rather choose disc B. lower/less PI Failures is more important than PI errors.
Although 1.000.000 PIF is rather high. PI E errors should stay below max 280.
PIF have more influence on on playback failures than PIE.

It’s all about moderation.
PIE’s all below 200 (which would be the 350 limit on any other reader).
PIF’s mostly below 10, and not huge clusters of them.
POF=0 of course.
Data integrity, not listed, should be 0 errors.

Disc A’s error coding doesn’t match, so it could have a data error. Was that a CMC? Disc B should play back with a few little pauses (maybe plays perfectly–depends on player), but no freezes or macroblocks. Is it a -R economy disc?

Anyway, players best tolerate PIE’s, and when scanning with a BenQ, you can have PIE’s up in the 200’s (means 300’s on most other readers) and the disc will play just fine. In fact, 90 for PIE’s is a “centerline” tolerance. With such high PIE levels, jitter/write speed becomes more important to eliminate choppy playback.

Sorry, I failed to mention these are not actual numbers from burns, rather they are hypotheticals I created to better illustrate my question!
Thanks for the inputs so far :slight_smile:

If you allow me a (rather overtuned) sense of humour M8…

Your question is: what would you prefer, being hang from a tree or being shot on the head ? :confused:

No, seriously, both would (most) probably give us the hicks, right ? :rolleyes:

Hp. _