[hello_hello]

It was understood. Maybe you missed my point when I said that even though testing for errors mightn't be 100% accurate it's still a pretty good guide as to the quality of the disc? Which obviously it must be, given you posted burn test results yourself and requested others do the same earlier in the thread. Why would you do that, only to argue later it's not possible to test the quality of a disc?

Some drives are better readers than others and different drives will no doubt report different errors. Claiming one drive will report a quality score of 96 while another will report a quality score of 56 seems to be inventing exaggerated values to me. I'd imagine a good quality burn will still test as a good quality burn in both drives while a poor quality burn will test as a poor quality burn in both drives even if the reported errors aren't exactly the same, so it'd still be possible to assess the burn quality even if it's not an exact science. Chances are the good quality burn will test as good quality in both drives (because it's good quality and easy to read) while the poor quality burn might look worse when tested in one drive than it does in the other (because one drive is better at reading poor quality burns).

Do you have any examples you can post of a disc which appears to be of a good quality in one drive while bad in another, or where the reported quality is different enough to show there's no point to testing discs for quality?