1.
You are interpreting reading error figures from one drive (one maker, one unit, one specimen) to be general error levels on the disc.
This is not only misleading, but factually false.
Scan them in another drive and you will get different results.
Now how good was that burn again?
Statistical analysis using a large enough sample of reading drives is the only way to get reliable results this way.
Otherwise you need to use a low level scanner to read direct disc level measures (or indirect measures using a calibrated scanner).
This is not only misleading, but factually false.
Scan them in another drive and you will get different results.
Now how good was that burn again?
Statistical analysis using a large enough sample of reading drives is the only way to get reliable results this way.
Otherwise you need to use a low level scanner to read direct disc level measures (or indirect measures using a calibrated scanner).
[Posted by: halcyon | Date: 11/01/05 10:55:09 PM]





