I've found out something interesting. Slower is not necessarily better. I burned identical data on TY 16X discs (T03) at 4X and 8X. As you'll see below, the 8X is a significantly better burn than the 4X. I'll pick up some TY 8X discs (T02) and make the same comparison and we'll have the answer to the title of this thread.
OOPS! the attachments didn't work. I saved them as DIPX files instead of PNG files and they didn't insert properly. I'll post the graphs very soon. Sorry.
That's what I was figuring, Cornholio, but I thought I'd ask. I'm thinking, like you mentioned, that the quality rating isn't as accurate without the jitter evaluation. Could a future drive firmware update address this sort of thing, do you think?
CD Speed won't do a quality scan at all with my drive and I just flashed it. The firmware update was very recent too. I like the drive, but.... Oh well, maybe the next update will address it.
I'm assuming that my drive does not support the jitter function? So I should strive for for a better percentage, since you described the result as "fairly" accurate? I'll post a snapshot in a few. I do have Nero too, should I try DiscSpeed?
I ran the PIPO scan on an already burned disc. Is that the right one? The quality rating said 99.0%. Is that good? I couldn't make much of the graphs. And it did not test for jitter. Thanks for your help, BTW.
I have a Samsung SH-S203B SATA drive and I use Imgburn exclusively for my burns. Are the TY 16X better than the 8X with this drive? How do I use the diagnostic tools to check my burns and what are the most important things to look for when evaluating which is a better burn. Thanks for any help .