Still a matter of context. With two discs of the same model/batch, the scan with PIE-10 levels indicates a better burn (due to better burner/software) than the scan with PIE-280 levels (assuming the media has correct consistency).
The other way round, though, is extremely questionable (thinking that in the same scanner, the disc with lower errors is better). There are so many exceptions to this "rule" because of drives reading quirks, media characteristics etc... that it's close to nonsense. A Benq can show you an awful scan of a disc that a Liteon will declare as great, or vice-versa. CATS can declare as excellent a disc that a LiteOn will declare crap and vice-versa. Etc...
..now what actually shall that be? i don't think that the average guy has 10 mio. players at home and the time to test em all. so, what do you actually suggest?
What is the purpose of the blank media section? : sharing experiences, because no one of us has the time, indeed, to conduct experiments 24h a day. :bigsmile:
I find Megadeth's input above as extremely informative, personally, far more than looking at dozens PIE/PIF scans: MCC03RG20s are great for compatibility with readers. Now that's useful to the community.
But TRTs are a good start, and scanning is IMO still recommended as long as it's taken for what it is, with a (big) grain of salt.
My best suggestion: unless you're a CDFreak and spend hours in testing and cross-checking, ask experienced people for media recommendations based on their real-world experience with discs, it will be more trustable than looking at PIE/PIF scans.