Which one is rigth? nero or kprobe

Sorry if this as been asked already, I just can’t find any threads or post answering this question:

When I burn a media with my 1633@CS0K and scan it my liteon and Krpobe, then I scan it with my benq and nero cd-dvd speed, I get extremly different results.

When I burn a media with my Benq and scan it with my benq and nero cd-dvd speed, then I scan it with my liteon and Krpobe, I get similar result.

In fact my benq and nero cd-dvd don’t like any media burnt with my liteon.
Why is that and how does benq and nero knows that the media was burnt with a liteon?

hope I am clear enough :confused:

There are a few things going on here that could cause this and there is possibly an interaction of variables that makes the explanation harder.

First, BenQ scans the PIF errors with a different count than Liteon, so you cannot compare them directly. BenQ will show error levels 8X higher. This is normal.

Second, any scan is a measure of a drive’s ability to read. The BenQ burner is generally considered to be much better than Liteon. As well, the BenQ has a reputation for being a very good reader. Differnt drives will just read different media with different results.

Also BenQ owners scan at 8X whereas Liteon owners scan at 4X. If you want to look at the variabilities of speed and reading, run CDSpeed’s quick scan and get ready to choke. :Z

With these factors, it is not at all out of line to see your results. Most people would go with the Liteon Kprobe scans at 4X as the most reliable, especially when you are being very discriminating.

Don’t believe that the mayority is allways right. You would have seen what crap people can come up with.
I have seen to much K-probe scans saying nothing about generalized behaviour on other drives .(Transfer rate tests on the same drive were even given better info).
Note I’m not saying that benq is better. Because I’ve also seen cases(rare) in Which the Lite On did perform better as benq when it comes to generalized behaviour on other drives.

If you want to use 1 tester then you shouldn’t allways do what the mayority likes but the one which actually works best for you.
In other words do some research and see for yourself which drive is better.
(And don’t forget to take all parameters into account (That includes PO,PIF,POF and jitter))

But I personally would say use them both to see if the media really works well.

But then, why are the scan similar between Kprobe and Nero cd-dvd speed when the media is burnt with the benq ?
This huge difference is shown only if the media is burnt with the liteon !

@ bichonn
Another factor to consider…an excellent burn will give good scan results on most if not all scanners. A burn of marginal quality can give highly variable scans according to how well the scanner can read. Maybe your BenQ burns are better than your Liteon burns to begin with, and your Liteon is a better at reading/correcting errors.

Post some scans. We are guessing here without actual data.

I will do it to night !

There’s really nothing more useless than comparing scans from different drives. Even 2 “identical” drives will show different scans. It may be interesting, but it’s not going to give you any of the sort of answers you are looking for. Unless you have a detailed understanding of what each drive is reporting, and how, the differences in the scans are meaningless. Even then, the differences are open to interpretation.

The answer to your question is that BOTH drives are “correct and accurate”. The only thing that a scan does is display exactly what the drive is reporting. Assuming adequate sample rates, there’s no “accurate” or “inaccurate” results.

Pick a scanning drive and program and stick with it. The only value that the scans have is to show you which disc is “better” than the other. There’s no such thing as a test that shows absolute burn quality or disc quality.

OK, here we go:

bellow are two scans, the first one is scanned with Kprobe and my liteon, the second one is scanned with nero and my Benq. Both scans are exactly the same media initially burnt with my miteon.

Now I think you understand when I said the difference was huge!!!

The weird thing is that when I burn with the Benq, there are no differences between the scans.

Why is Nero so tough with liteon :eek:

@ bichonn

And when you scan at the LiteOn forum speed of 4x with your Benq, is the difference still that huge?
However, I don’t believe in comparing these scans. I think rdgrimes is right. Personelly I value scans not that much, I just scan my disks to see if quality is staying the same. My standalone is more important, if a movie plays in that one, it plays everywhere :iagree:

:slight_smile: Leo

Ok I am back again, this time I did it the way around !!!
I burnt an other MCC03, but this time I burnt it with my benq and scanned it with both drive. This time both result are very similar. The small difference is probably du to tha fact that I scanned at 8X with the benq !!

So I am still asking this question: why when the media is burnt with the liteon, the benq doesn’t like it ??? difference in the way both drive bitset? difference in leadin or leadout ???

The reason for the difference is simple: The Benq is making better discs than the LiteOn. Suggest you lower the burn speed on the LiteOn.

Because of parameters that are different and are worse when the lite On burns that you can’t meassure but some expensive analyzer from Audiodev Datarius can.
We are talking about pulse length, Reflectivity and that sort of things.

Hi Bichonn

I Think This Is Very Interesting What You Are Asking.

Maybe You Could Ask Erik Deppe (CD-DVD Speed Author)

I Would Like To See A Third Burner (Non Lite-ON & BenQ)
Scanned On The BenQ And Lite-On With Kprobe & CD-DVD Speed.

And Without The Wrath Of Rdgrimes You Could Try Scanning
Both Lite-ON & BenQ Disc’s With DVDinfoPro.
To See If It Only CD-DVD Speed That Is Favouring The BenQ.

Just My Humble Thoughts :slight_smile:

Hey, back again. Same thing with plextor Vs BenQ:
see here http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=136156#post977635