I'm afraid the process works a little bit differently.
Maybe I missed the mark in what I communicated.
Sometimes you could use the word 'orange' and not be clear in whether you meant food or color. Sometimes you just fail to get what your thinking down into words, and maybe I did fail at that.
Halc, if you have a pioneer, or a plextor, and either drives says it'll burn +R media at 4x and you buy 4x media and use it with either drive they should burn it properly.
Now the 'money' word in that sentence was 'should'.
That meant should like little girls and boys 'should' be good. It doesn't try to say they will.
You see how the communication can fail?
Halc, there is a product out there called CloneCD that takes control of the drive and does correct efm encoding. I believe that is taking control of the drive from even from it's own firmware.
This is mute point. What I'm trying to get at is that drives can be controlled by software and it is proven when copying copy protected disks.
Now, to clearfiy another of my failings, I never meant to say, and I'm not sure I did, that a drive could be made to burn all media perfectly.
I believe I covered that by describing a report:
Quote: One would be for folks like me who just want to know what is the best speed to burn the media at.
What I was thinking is in the case a user buys a spindle and in using this finds that the 'best speed' to burn at would be 1X and that would be specified as only 80% accurate.
Do you see where my idea would now show the user that this media is impossible?
There are times when a project will desperately need to be burned and inferior or media with a low compatiblity with no write strategy in the burner's firmware will be the only stuff available. At times like this the media diagnostic would could "on some occasions" show a user that they could get acceptable quality if they just burned it an 1X.
This is what I was describing. The media would be tested just as I described, burning a couple cylinders at one speed, at one angle of the laser, at one power setting and the next two cylinders at the next setting. You'd have plenty of cylinders to cover the whole spread of possibilities atleast (grossly atleast) 3-4 times to cover the various rotation zones in the drives that change speeds and such to give a comprehensive test.
Then the reading would be done just as I said testing at various speeds to see how bad does it get at higher speeds.
In the case that concerns you: a perfectly INCOMPATIABLE media type the tests would show it. And like I said above it would show only a terribly low accuracy rate even at a terribly low X factor.
I would envision a preset bit pattern used over and over again such as the 256 ascii codes so the test would know just what it should be finding and comparing.
Now to take your argument even a step further from here. Media even varies from 'run to run' or better said 'batch to batch'.
What I meant to say is this process is for a 'spindle'; meaning a paticular spindle. The spindle of the same media you buy 5 weeks later of the same brand and so on would be re-tested since they may have screwed up a run or done a better run.
Now if you ADD what my miss-communication left out:
This process would not make a drive burn any media, it would just tell you how to set it for the best result and how good that paticular best result will be. If the media was perfectly incompatible, the results of the test would show that. ie: "At 1x the media was only 23% readable."
Such a diagnostic feature could be done with software.
Such a diagnostic feature could create a write strategy for compatible media.
It could show the best strategy for a paticular 'run' of compatible media.
It could show a patuclar 'run' of media would be impossible.
It could do it in a manner that would be black and white for a new user.
Please keep the comments coming,
Friction generates heat, heat burns disks = cool.